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

Comparison Overview

Hallmark CardsHallmark Cards
VS
TFG (The Foschini Group)TFG (The Foschini Group)
Hallmark Cards

Hallmark Cards

2501 McGee, Kansas City, 64108, US

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
533/1000Critical

Hallmark believes if you care enough you can change the world as we work to help create a more emotionally connected world in every life, every day. Founded in 1910 by a teenage entrepreneur with two shoe boxes of postcards under his arm, Hallmark today is still famil...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:17,415
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

340 Voortrekker Road, Cape Town, 7500, ZA

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tfgcareers.co.za
771/1000Fair

TFG holds a diversified portfolio of speciality retail assets across various product categories and consumer segments. The Group has a portfolio of 35 leading retail brands, with over 4600 outlets in 23 countries on five continents, offering customers a variety of speci...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:27,962
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hallmark Cards

Hallmark Cards

-
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
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

-
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)

Hallmark Cards has 63.04% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TFG (The Foschini Group) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Hallmark Cards (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hallmark Cards cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - TFG (The Foschini Group) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TFG (The Foschini Group) 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...
Hallmark Cards

Hallmark Cards

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
SALHAL1775967850
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCGSUBAMTADTHALPANCARBET1785169886
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-102335
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 fails to restrict the advanced_config field to administrators, allowing non-admin users with manage permissions to inject arbitrary nginx directives. Attackers can inject malicious nginx configuration such as alias directives to serve arbitrary files or control routing for their assigned hosts.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102334
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 lacks rate-limiting on authentication endpoints, allowing unauthenticated attackers to make unlimited password guesses against any account. Attackers can brute-force login credentials via POST /api/tokens and subsequently guess TOTP codes via POST /api/tokens/2fa to gain full session access and administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-102333
SUMMARY

httpdbg before 2.2.1 fails to validate URL schemes in recorded HTTP request URLs rendered as clickable links in the web interface. Attackers controlling traffic recorded by httpdbg can supply javascript: scheme URLs that execute malicious scripts in the application origin when clicked, allowing access to captured request and response data including headers and tokens.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102332
SUMMARY

Dozzle versions before 11.1.2 fail to sanitize container display names when building ZIP archive entry names in the log download endpoint. Attackers who can label containers can use path traversal sequences to write files outside the extraction directory when users download and extract logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-101262
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Ziroom ZHOME A0101 1.0.1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /api/ZRQos/set_online_client. The manipulation of the argument ip leads to command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3