Comparison Overview

Castle Press

VS

BFC

Castle Press

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799

Castle Press is your printing partner. Use our Design Online application, get an immediate online estimate for standard size items and upload your designer’s PDF file or get help with a custom project through our Custom Consultation Service. At Castle Press, our team enjoys working with our customers to create beautiful printed pieces that are successfully integrated into a total marketing plan.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 25
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

BFC

1051 N. Kirk Rd., Batavia, IL, 60510, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799

BFC utilizes an integrated & innovative approach to print and digital marketing. We are experts in marketing fulfillment services, field sales support and 3PL pick, pack & fulfillment solutions. Our kitting capabilities can handle simple item consolidation to complicated product builds. BFC is a family owned high-powered solution provider behind your brand.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 104
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/castle-press.jpeg
Castle Press
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bfc-print.jpeg
BFC
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Castle Press
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BFC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Castle Press in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BFC in 2025.

Incident History — Castle Press (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Castle Press cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — BFC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BFC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/castle-press.jpeg
Castle Press
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bfc-print.jpeg
BFC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Castle Press company and BFC company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, BFC company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Castle Press company.

In the current year, BFC company and Castle Press company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BFC company nor Castle Press company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither BFC company nor Castle Press company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither BFC company nor Castle Press company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Castle Press company nor BFC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Castle Press nor BFC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Castle Press company nor BFC company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

BFC company employs more people globally than Castle Press company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Castle Press nor BFC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Castle Press nor BFC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Castle Press nor BFC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Castle Press nor BFC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Castle Press nor BFC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Castle Press nor BFC holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N