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

Comparison Overview

Fit For WorkFit For Work
VS
Massage EnvyMassage Envy
Fit For Work

Fit For Work

4040 Broadway Street Suite 220, San Antonio, TX, 78209, US

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.wellworkforce.com
767/1000Fair

Fit For Work™ is an Injury Prevention firm that partners with large companies to deliver a 50% reduction in injuries so they can focus on their business. For over 20 years, our diverse team Athletic Trainers, Occupational Therapist, Physical Therapist, Certified Profess...

NAICS:713
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:265
Subsidiaries:47
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Massage Envy

Massage Envy

14350 N. 87th St., Suite 200, Scottsdale, 85260, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.MassageEnvy.com
786/1000Fair

Massage Envy is a leading wellness franchise providing professional massage, skin care, and assisted stretch services nationwide. Co-founded by a massage therapist in 2002, the brand’s mission is simple: make total body care accessible and affordable so people can feel ...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:16,642
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fit For Work

Fit For Work

-
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
Massage Envy

Massage Envy

-
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 Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fit For Work in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Massage Envy in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fit For Work (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fit For Work cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Massage Envy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Massage Envy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Fit For Work

Fit For Work

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Massage Envy

Massage Envy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9