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

Comparison Overview

GapGap
VS
TescoTesco
Gap

Gap

55 Thomas Street, New York, 10013, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
800/1000Good

In 1969, Don and Doris Fisher opened the first Gap store on Ocean Avenue in San Francisco. They wanted to make it easier to find a great pair of jeans, and they did. Their denim and records store was a hit, and it grew to become one of the world’s most iconic brands. ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:14,799
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tesco

Tesco

Shire Park, Welwyn Garden City, AL7 1GA, GB

Last Update: 09/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.tescoplc.com
745/1000Moderate

One of the world’s largest retailers of consumer goods from food to fashion. Serving our customers, communities and planet a little better every day in our stores and online is at the heart of everything we do. Founded in 1919 by Jack Cohen using the £30 he received on...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:86,468
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gap

Gap

-
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
Tesco

Tesco

-
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 Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gap in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Tesco has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Gap (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gap cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Tesco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tesco 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...
Gap

Gap

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tesco

Tesco

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
AST-TESHE1773679185
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PETBLATOT-TE1770804130
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MARCALWAISAITOYTHEMORPET-TE1772023906

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA