Comparison Overview

Fox Group

VS

Green Office

Fox Group

1100 Schwab Rd, Hatfield, Pennsylvania, 19440, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

Fox Group provides unique solutions for tactile marketing, the creative use of paper to stimulate your marketing audience. Our solutions are designed to enhance and complement services provided by printers, graphic designers and product professionals. From concept through production consultation, we ensure your tactile marketing project induces a reaction.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 54
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Green Office

9 Myrtle Rd, Pinetown, 3600, ZA
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

Green Office is an independent print solutions provider, with a focus on efficiency and sustainability. We manage all aspects of a print environment, from supplying materials and deploying software, to reducing paper usage. What started as the remanufacture of used printer cartridges in 1997, has now developed into a comprehensive end-to-end solution for the document environment. Green Office’s purpose is to make business more efficient and sustainable. But what does that mean, how does Green Office achieve this? “Our job is to design, develop and implement a print strategy based on clearly defined projects and measurables. The end goal is to get our clients to print less!”, says Fyvie. An independent print solutions provider helping individuals and businesses reduce physical, financial and operational waste, Green Office is turning the office printing industry on its head by providing a return on investment (ROI) model to clients’ printing environment. Who would not want their business to be more efficient and sustainable? In theory, this should be an easy decision to make, but it’s often not easy at all. We will continue to work passionately in our pursuit of making business more efficient and sustainable. If we are not doing this, then we don’t belong there.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 54
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fox-group-inc.jpeg
Fox Group
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/greenoffice.jpeg
Green Office
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Fox Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Green Office
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fox Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Green Office in 2025.

Incident History — Fox Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fox Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Green Office (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Green Office cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fox-group-inc.jpeg
Fox Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/greenoffice.jpeg
Green Office
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Fox Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Green Office company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Green Office company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Fox Group company.

In the current year, Green Office company and Fox Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Green Office company nor Fox Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Green Office company nor Fox Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Green Office company nor Fox Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fox Group company nor Green Office company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fox Group nor Green Office holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Fox Group company nor Green Office company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Both Fox Group company and Green Office company employ a similar number of people globally.

Neither Fox Group nor Green Office holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fox Group nor Green Office holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fox Group nor Green Office holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fox Group nor Green Office holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fox Group nor Green Office holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fox Group nor Green Office holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L