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

Comparison Overview

ReframeReframe
VS
Forever Living Products (UK) LtdForever Living Products (UK) Ltd
Reframe

Reframe

6120 Windward Pkwy, Alpharetta, 30005, US

Last Update: 01/07/2026

View Profile
696/1000Weak

The #1 App to help people reduce their alcohol intake or quit drinking. Reframe is a neuroscience habit change program focused on helping people change the way alcohol shows up in their lives, whether that's through cutting back or complete abstinence from alcohol. W...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:80
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
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

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Reframe

Reframe

-
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 (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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Reframe has 39.76% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

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

Reframe cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Reframe

Reframe

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GLU1782923570
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
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-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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