Comparison Overview

Custom Label

VS

Brightformat

Custom Label

7800 Patterson Pass Rd, Livermore, California, US, 94550
Last Update: 2025-12-18
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.customlabel.com

Our mission revolves around helping businesses build their brand - one custom label at a time. For nearly 50 years, we have stayed at the leading edge of printing technology to provide creative solutions for the labeling and packaging needs of businesses within different market segments. With our flexographic and digital printing capabilities, we curate customized labels, tags, cartons, and sleeves perfectly fitting for the unique demands of every business.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 48
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Brightformat

5300 Corporate Grove SE, Grand Rapids, MI, 49512, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.brightformat.com

At Brightformat, we have taken the conventional model for a printing company and made it relevant in today's world. As specialized experts in high-quality digital printing and direct mail, we have built our business on the simple yet often overlooked belief that there is nothing more important than the success of our clients. We group our services into five categories: environmental graphics, event graphics, retail graphics, marketing materials, and direct mail. Those categories are helpful as a starting point, but the way we think about projects is a lot more flexible. We often find solutions others can’t by bringing techniques and ideas from one category to another—using all the tools at our disposal to bring projects to life. Our company is sharp, colorful, service-oriented, and forward-thinking in all things graphic arts. We work with superheroes, you should too. Thank you for joining us. Brightformat was founded originally in 1988 as Diversified Data Services by current co-owner Mike Glupker. It began as a company offering mailing list services to clients and has grown and evolved into a digital printing, direct mail and marketing firm with an excellent reputation for quality and service. Current wonder twins--and co-owners since 2008, Pete Houlihan and Mike Glupker recently changed the name to Brightformat because they wanted it to more accurately reflect their commitment to smart, colorful service and their passion for all things Graphic Arts.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 12
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/custom-label-&-decal-llc.jpeg
Custom Label
—
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/brightformat.jpeg
Brightformat
—
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
Custom Label
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Brightformat
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Custom Label in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Brightformat in 2025.

Incident History — Custom Label (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Custom Label cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Brightformat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/custom-label-&-decal-llc.jpeg
Custom Label
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brightformat.jpeg
Brightformat
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Custom Label company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Brightformat company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Brightformat company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Custom Label company.

In the current year, Brightformat company and Custom Label company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Brightformat company nor Custom Label company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Brightformat company nor Custom Label company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Brightformat company nor Custom Label company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Custom Label company nor Brightformat company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Custom Label nor Brightformat holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Custom Label company nor Brightformat company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Custom Label company employs more people globally than Brightformat company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Custom Label nor Brightformat holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Custom Label nor Brightformat holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Custom Label nor Brightformat holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Custom Label nor Brightformat holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Custom Label nor Brightformat holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Custom Label nor Brightformat 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.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
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
References
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)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
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)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
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
References