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

Comparison Overview

Chesapeake Regional Imaging CentersChesapeake Regional Imaging Centers
VS
Purpose Brands, LLCPurpose Brands, LLC
Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers

Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers

171 Kempsville Road, Norfolk, VA, 23502, US

Last Update: 22/12/2025

View Profile
769/1000Fair

We offer MRI, CT, X-Ray and Arthrogram services at our Kempsville location. In Chesapeake, we have two true Open MRI's designed for the comfort of claustrophobic patients in-particular . At both facilities you will find we have a highly trained and dedicated staff. All...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:11
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Purpose Brands, LLC

Purpose Brands, LLC

111 Weir Drive, Woodbury, 55125, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://purposebrands.com/
743/1000Moderate

Purpose Brands, LLC provides fitness, nutrition and wellness support and services to more than 7,000 communities and millions of people around the world. We own and operate the world’s largest and most trusted portfolio of fitness, health and wellness franchise brand...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:29,223
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers

Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers

-
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
Purpose Brands, LLC

Purpose Brands, LLC

-
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 Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Purpose Brands, LLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Purpose Brands, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Purpose Brands, LLC 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...
Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers

Chesapeake Regional Imaging Centers

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Purpose Brands, LLC

Purpose Brands, LLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PUR3203232111425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA