Comparison Overview
COS

COS
1 New Oxford Street, London, England, undefined, GB
Last Update: 19/03/2026
COS offers a wardrobe of ready-to-wear and accessories for a life well dressed. Rooted in luxury design and compelling fashion movements, the collection pays meticulous attention to sustainable craftsmanship, quality and a superior colour palette that transcends time. T...

Under Armour
101 Performance Dr, Baltimore, 21230, US
Last Update: 02/04/2026
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...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

COS







Under Armour






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for COS in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
Under Armour has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - COS (X = Date, Y = Severity)
COS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Under Armour (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Under Armour cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

COS

Under Armour
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the Alarm/Conditions wrapper when processing PublishResponse EventNotificationList data
- https://github.com/gff-cw/information/issues/18
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/S2OPC_Toolkit_1.7.3/src/ClientServer/address_space/sopc_event_manager.c
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/S2OPC_Toolkit_1.7.3/src/ClientServer/frontend/client_wrapper/alarm_conditions/libs2opc_client_alarm_conditions.c
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/S2OPC_Toolkit_1.7.3/src/ClientServer/frontend/client_wrapper/internal/state_machine.c
- https://gitlab.com/systerel/S2OPC/-/work_items/1781
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path
- https://github.com/gff-cw/information/issues/16
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/master/samples/ClientServer/client_wrapper/examples/subscribe.c
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/master/src/ClientServer/frontend/client_wrapper/internal/state_machine.c
- https://gitlab.com/systerel/S2OPC/-/work_items/1780
In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.
H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.
H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.