Comparison Overview

DESIGN FIRM

VS

A Ziemba Design

DESIGN FIRM

F. Litsa 34, Athens, undefined, 15234, GR
Last Update: 2025-12-03
Between 750 and 799

Design Firm is an ambitious, talented and creative studio based in Athens. DF takes enjoyment in being a small and productive design studio that can provide services to big agencies. DF promotes clean design and brings energy and commitment in every single project. We deliver creativity with great results for projects across a multitude of industries. DF is effective and diverse in areas such as: design for the web & print, visual identity, branding, package design, digital marketing & social media planning.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 17
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

A Ziemba Design

undefined, Portsmouth, NH, 03801, US
Last Update: 2025-12-03
Between 700 and 749

Creative solutions for start-ups in need of generating a brand presence. Supplemental design assistance for agencies and established businesses. The goal is to help clients build strong visual identities and create effective marketing materials. I equip each client with the tools they need to confidently promote and grow their business. Whether working with emerging companies or well-established brands, I bring the same level of creativity, adaptability, and strategic thinking to every project.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 1
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/design-firm.jpeg
DESIGN FIRM
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/a-ziemba-design.jpeg
A Ziemba Design
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
DESIGN FIRM
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
A Ziemba Design
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Graphic Design Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DESIGN FIRM in 2025.

Incidents vs Graphic Design Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A Ziemba Design in 2025.

Incident History — DESIGN FIRM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DESIGN FIRM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — A Ziemba Design (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A Ziemba Design cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/design-firm.jpeg
DESIGN FIRM
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/a-ziemba-design.jpeg
A Ziemba Design
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

DESIGN FIRM company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to A Ziemba Design company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, A Ziemba Design company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to DESIGN FIRM company.

In the current year, A Ziemba Design company and DESIGN FIRM company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither A Ziemba Design company nor DESIGN FIRM company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither A Ziemba Design company nor DESIGN FIRM company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither A Ziemba Design company nor DESIGN FIRM company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither DESIGN FIRM company nor A Ziemba Design company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither DESIGN FIRM nor A Ziemba Design holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither DESIGN FIRM company nor A Ziemba Design company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

DESIGN FIRM company employs more people globally than A Ziemba Design company, reflecting its scale as a Graphic Design.

Neither DESIGN FIRM nor A Ziemba Design holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither DESIGN FIRM nor A Ziemba Design holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither DESIGN FIRM nor A Ziemba Design holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither DESIGN FIRM nor A Ziemba Design holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither DESIGN FIRM nor A Ziemba Design holds HIPAA certification.

Neither DESIGN FIRM nor A Ziemba Design holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.11.1, vllm has a critical remote code execution vector in a config class named Nemotron_Nano_VL_Config. When vllm loads a model config that contains an auto_map entry, the config class resolves that mapping with get_class_from_dynamic_module(...) and immediately instantiates the returned class. This fetches and executes Python from the remote repository referenced in the auto_map string. Crucially, this happens even when the caller explicitly sets trust_remote_code=False in vllm.transformers_utils.config.get_config. In practice, an attacker can publish a benign-looking frontend repo whose config.json points via auto_map to a separate malicious backend repo; loading the frontend will silently run the backend’s code on the victim host. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. Prior to 12.5.0, by crafting a malicious URL, an attacker could access routes that are not allowed, even though the reply.from is defined for specific routes in @fastify/reply-from. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.5.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/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

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/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

Gin-vue-admin is a backstage management system based on vue and gin. In 2.8.6 and earlier, attackers can delete any file on the server at will, causing damage or unavailability of server resources. Attackers can control the 'FileMd5' parameter to delete any file and folder.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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

Portkey.ai Gateway is a blazing fast AI Gateway with integrated guardrails. Prior to 1.14.0, the gateway determined the destination baseURL by prioritizing the value in the x-portkey-custom-host request header. The proxy route then appends the client-specified path to perform an external fetch. This can be maliciously used by users for SSRF attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.14.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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