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-2026-103761
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a memory exhaustion vulnerability in TransferMetadata::receivePeerNotify that allows unauthenticated attackers to grow process memory without limit. Attackers can repeatedly send notify frames up to 1 MB to the handshake RPC port, filling the uncapped notifys vector until the out-of-memory killer terminates the engine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-103760
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to block the handshake daemon by never reading replies. Attackers can send a Metadata request to the handshake RPC port and stall SocketHandShakePlugin's single listener thread in writeFully(), breaking all subsequent handshakes, metadata fetches, notify and probe requests.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-71427
SUMMARY

Office-PowerPoint-MCP-Server through 2.0.7 contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows MCP callers to write and read files outside the working directory by supplying absolute paths or ../ sequences. Attackers can steer an AI agent via prompt injection to abuse save_presentation, open_presentation, or manage_image output_path to overwrite any server-writable file or load external files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86344
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a complete LDAP operation followed by the first bytes of an incomplete LDAPMessage on the same connection, causing the server to hand that connection to a second worker thread before the first worker's result is flushed. The second worker blocks until nsslapd-ioblocktimeout while holding the connection mutex, preventing delivery of the completed operation's result. Repeating this across a small number of connections proportional to the configured worker-thread pool size exhausts the entire pool under default configuration, denying service to all clients (anonymous and authenticated, plaintext and TLS) for as long as the attacker maintains the connections.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71454
SUMMARY

Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') vulnerability in CWE-79 - Cross-site Scripting CAPEC-63 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue affects CAPEC-63: before 3.0b63.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA