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

Comparison Overview

Forever Living Products (UK) LtdForever Living Products (UK) Ltd
VS
Forever Living Products (Home Office)Forever Living Products (Home Office)
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

GB

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 850 and 899
http://foreverliving.com/
856/1000Very Good

Forever Living Products and its affiliates are the largest growers, manufacturer and distributors of Aloe Vera products. The key to Forever Living's success is commitment to quality and purity. In order to ensure the highest quality, Forever Living cultivates aloe vera ...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:31,285
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Forever Living Products (Home Office)

Forever Living Products (Home Office)

7501 E. McCormick Parkway, Scottsdale, 85258, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.foreverliving.com
785/1000Fair

Forever Living Products and its affiliates are the largest growers, manufacturers and distributors of aloe vera products in the world. The key to Forever's success is commitment to quality and purity. With offices in over 160 countries and Forever Business Owners worldw...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:13,441
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) 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
Forever Living Products (Home Office)

Forever Living Products (Home Office)

-
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 Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Forever Living Products (Home Office) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Forever Living Products (Home Office) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Forever Living Products (Home Office) 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 Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Forever Living Products (Home Office)

Forever Living Products (Home Office)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2