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

Comparison Overview

Glasses DirectGlasses Direct
VS
NextNext
Glasses Direct

Glasses Direct

40 Clifton Street, London, EC2A 4DX, GB

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
768/1000Fair

Founded in 2004, Glasses Direct is the UK’s most trusted online glasses retailer, with over 185,000 reviews on Trustpilot and more than 2 million customers! With its customer-centric ethos, Glasses Direct is changing the way people buy prescription glasses in the UK. Gl...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:51
Subsidiaries:35
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Next

Next

Enderby, Leicester, Leicestershire, GB, LE19 4AT

Last Update: 30/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://careers.next.co.uk/
813/1000Good

At Next we never underestimate what we can do. Bring your energy, play to your strengths and never shy away from change. Push yourself and back others. Make things happen that will be bigger and better than before. Come and work for one of the UK’s biggest retailers. ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:25,463
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Glasses Direct

Glasses Direct

-
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
Next

Next

-
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 Glasses Direct in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Next in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Glasses Direct (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Glasses Direct cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Next 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...
Glasses Direct

Glasses Direct

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Next

Next

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9