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

Comparison Overview

Gnome GamesGnome Games
VS
Harris TeeterHarris Teeter
Gnome Games

Gnome Games

2160 S. Ridge Road, None, Green Bay, WI, US, 54304

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.gnomegames.com
754/1000Fair

Gnome Games provides families of Wisconsin the finest in tabletop gaming products, events and services. Our retail locations feature the largest selection of board and card games in the state. We feature in store gaming opportunities 7 days a week at each of our l...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:16
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

701 Crestdale Drive, Matthews, 28105, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.harristeeter.com
788/1000Fair

Founded in 1960 in North Carolina, Harris Teeter has been enriching the lives of our customers and our communities for decades. Today, Harris Teeter employs 36,000 valued associates and operates more than 250 stores and 70 fuel centers in seven states and the District o...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:14,778
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gnome Games

Gnome Games

-
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
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

-
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 Gnome Games in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Harris Teeter in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Gnome Games (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gnome Games cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Harris Teeter (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Harris Teeter 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...
Gnome Games

Gnome Games

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GNO007040925
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8