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
Bata GroupBata Group
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
Bata Group

Bata Group

Avenue d'ouchy 61, Lausanne, 1006, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bata.com
788/1000Fair

The Bata Group is one of the world's leading manufacturers and retailers of quality footwear. A global concern with more than 32,000 employees, 21 production facilities, over 5,300 stores in more than 70 countries across the globe, Bata has been providing the best shoes...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:15,055
Subsidiaries:10
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
Bata Group

Bata Group

-
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 Bata Group 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 - Bata Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bata Group 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...
Forever 21

Forever 21

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
FOR22111923
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FOR612072625
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FOR801050924
Bata Group

Bata Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-9044
SUMMARY

An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the VPN module of TP-Link AXE75 V1 routers. This vulnerability allows an adjacent, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the device by importing a specially crafted VPN client configuration file. The issue arises from improper filtering of special characters.  Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may enable an attacker to gain full control of the affected device, potentially compromising configuration integrity, network security, and service availability.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-54909
SUMMARY

pion/stun is a Go implementation of STUN. Prior to 3.1.3, XORMappedAddress.GetFromAs can panic while parsing a malformed short XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in STUN or ICE Binding-response parsing paths, allowing remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 3.1.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54785
SUMMARY

gemini-bridge is a lightweight MCP server bridging AI agents to Google's Gemini AI via the official CLI. From 1.0.0 until 1.3.1, consult_gemini_with_files in inline mode read any file path supplied in the files argument without confining it to the working directory, then forwarded the contents to the Gemini CLI. Because the caller also controls query, the file contents are echoed back through the Gemini round-trip (and sent to Google), making this an arbitrary local file read. This issue is fixed in version 1.3.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5
CVE-2026-54768
SUMMARY

WPGraphQL provides a GraphQL API for WordPress sites. From 2.0.0 until 2.15.1, the deprecated user field on SendPasswordResetEmailPayload lets an unauthenticated caller distinguish existing author-class accounts through the sendPasswordResetEmail mutation and obtain public profile fields. This issue is fixed in version 2.15.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53573
SUMMARY

GeoNetwork is a catalog application to manage spatially referenced resources. From 3.12.0 until 4.2.16 and 4.4.11, unsafe redirect validation in GeonetworkOAuth2LoginAuthenticationFilter and KeycloakAuthenticationProcessingFilter permits an attacker-controlled external redirect after login. This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.16 and 4.4.11.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA