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

Comparison Overview

ElektraElektra
VS
Chico's FAS, Inc.Chico's FAS, Inc.
Elektra

Elektra

Insurgentes Sur 3579, México, 14020, MX

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.elektra.com.mx/
784/1000Fair

Con más de 72 años de experiencia, en Elektra creamos momentos felices brindando la mejor experiencia de compra omnicanal a nuestros clientes. Somos la compañía de retail con el mayor crecimiento en los últimos años en México y Latinoamérica. Actualmente, contamos con ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:6,400
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Chico's FAS, Inc.

Chico's FAS, Inc.

11215 Metro Parkway, Fort Myers, FL, US, 33966

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile

Our passion for fashion and desire to inspire confidence and joy have been guiding the creation of our women’s clothing, intimates, and accessories for more than 40 years. Our portfolio consists of three brands: Chico’s, WHBM, and Soma found in over 1,000 stores through...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:10,337
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Elektra

Elektra

-
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
Chico's FAS, Inc.

Chico's FAS, Inc.

-
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 Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Elektra in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chico's FAS, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Elektra (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Elektra cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Chico's FAS, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chico's FAS, Inc. 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...
Elektra

Elektra

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Chico's FAS, Inc.

Chico's FAS, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI231072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19961
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. Affected is the function formWlSiteSurvey of the file /goform/formWlSiteSurvey. Performing a manipulation of the argument selSSID results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19960
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This impacts the function formWlbasic of the file /goform/formWlbasic. Such manipulation of the argument rootAPmac leads to command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:P/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19959
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This affects the function formWanTcpipSetup of the file /goform/formWanTcpipSetup. This manipulation of the argument pppUserName causes stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19958
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in iatsiuk pptr-mcp up to 0.2.7. The impacted element is the function executeCode of the file src/vm-executor.ts of the component execute Tool. The manipulation results in code injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19957
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in graphlit graphlit-mcp-server 1.0.1. This affects the function fetch of the file src/tools.ts of the component ssrf-test Endpoint. Such manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8