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

Comparison Overview

Forever 21Forever 21
VS
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.
Forever 21

Forever 21

3880 Mission Road, Los Angeles, 90031, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.forever21.com
727/1000Moderate

Forever 21 continues to be a fashion industry leader with a mission to make the latest trends accessible to all. F21 persists on staying ahead of innovation and providing styles and fit that our customers love. While reinventing for now and beyond, we’re seeking passion...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:19,323
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Piramal Agastya Corporate Park, Building 'A', 4th and 5th Floor, Unit No. 401, 403, 501, 502, L.B.S. Road, Kurla, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400070

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.abfrl.com/
763/1000Fair

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited (ABFRL), part of the Aditya Birla Group, is India’s leading fashion powerhouse, offering a distinguished portfolio of renowned brands and retail formats, catering to multiple high-growth segments. As of March 31, 2025, the Compan...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:14,033
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Forever 21

Forever 21

-
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
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

-
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 Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Forever 21 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Forever 21 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Forever 21 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. 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...
Forever 21

Forever 21

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
FOR22111923
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FOR612072625
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FOR801050924
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Forever 21 company and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Forever 21 and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Forever 21 and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Forever 21 or Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Forever 21 or Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. ?
Between Forever 21 and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Forever 21 and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1