Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Carters Inc.Carters Inc.
VS
Under ArmourUnder Armour
Carters Inc.

Carters Inc.

3438 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, 30326, US

Last Update: 14/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.carters.com
732/1000Moderate

Carter’s, Inc. is the largest branded marketer in the United States and Canada of apparel and related products exclusively for babies and young children. The Company owns the Carter’s and OshKosh B’gosh brands, two of the most recognized brands in the marketplace. The...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:9,914
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Under Armour

Under Armour

101 Performance Dr, Baltimore, 21230, US

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
100/1000Critical

Our Belief: WE USE THE POWER OF SPORTS TO EXPAND EVERY PLAYING FIELD. Our Obsession: WE ARE OBSESSED WITH ATHLETES WHO STRIVE FOR MORE – IN SPORTS, IN LIFE, AND IN THE WORLD. Our Mission: TO INSPIRE ATHLETES WITH INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS THEY CAN’T LI...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:13,030
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Carters Inc.

Carters Inc.

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Under Armour

Under Armour

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

Carters Inc. has 58.51% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

Under Armour has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Carters Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carters Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Under Armour (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Under Armour cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Carters Inc.

Carters Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NTTPLURALCARHEL1776148133
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAR162111322
Under Armour

Under Armour

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UND1769117511
🔒 Incident : Breach
UND1769174822
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UND3492734111825

FAQ

Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Carters Inc. company and Under Armour company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Carters Inc. and Under Armour, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Carters Inc. and Under Armour, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Carters Inc. or Under Armour ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Carters Inc. or Under Armour ?
Between Carters Inc. and Under Armour, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Carters Inc. and Under Armour, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8