Comparison Overview
Eyebuydirect

Eyebuydirect
177 E Colorado Blvd, None, Pasadena, California, US, 91105
Last Update: 01/04/2026
There are 2.2 billion people worldwide, suffering from uncorrected vision. Our founder, Roy Hessel, saw no reason that a pair of glasses should cost them hundreds of dollars—especially considering how inexpensive they are to make. In 2005, Eyebuydirect was created with ...

Under Armour
101 Performance Dr, Baltimore, 21230, US
Last Update: 11/09/2026
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

Eyebuydirect







Under Armour






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Eyebuydirect in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
Under Armour has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Eyebuydirect (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Eyebuydirect 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

Eyebuydirect

Under Armour
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.
Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.