Comparison Overview
Design Collective by Cintas

Design Collective by Cintas
undefined, Chicago, IL, 60638, US
Last Update: 09/02/2026
What we wear is personal. It provides comfort. Confidence. Expression. When it comes to work, the right apparel can make a world of difference. Which is why when designing that apparel, it's all about a perfect fit: A flexible, collaborative partner. A vision that captu...

Levi Strauss & Co.
1155 Battery St, San Francisco, US
Last Update: 05/09/2026
You’re an original. So are we. We’re a company of people who like to forge our own path. We invented the blue jean in 1873, and we reinvented khaki pants in 1986. We pioneered labor and environmental guidelines in manufacturing. And we work to build sustainability int...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Design Collective by Cintas







Levi Strauss & Co.






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

Design Collective by Cintas

Levi Strauss & Co.
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.
A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.
A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).
In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).
A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.