Comparison Overview

Houston Sign Company

VS

Ink Floyd Screen Printing

Houston Sign Company

undefined, Houston, undefined, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.houstonsign.com/about-us/customer-testimonials.html

Houston Sign Company produces a wide variety of high quality graphical communications. From signs to decals, from bumper stickers to banners, Houston Sign Company produces an amazing array of graphic displays. When quality matters, customers rely on Houston Sign Company. Houston Sign Company has been in operation since 1946. We are proud to have produced signs, banners, posters, decals and more for Houston's most notable companies. Whatever your purpose or needs, we can help you design the best solution. Our customers get noticed, their messages get delivered and their audiences pay attention to important information. While signs are our product, we know that our purpose is to help you boost sales and build your image. Please visit us on facebook for updates and sales: www.facebook.com/houstonsign

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 22
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Ink Floyd Screen Printing

1101 E. 36th St., Charlotte, 28205, US
Last Update: 2025-12-13
Between 750 and 799
http://www.inkfloyd.com

Welcome to Ink Floyd, your direct connection to an extraordinary custom t-shirt screen printer! Our mission is simple - We find out what you want and we give it to you. We create valuable assets for your company by providing custom graphics and promotional items for consistent branding and heightened exposure in the marketplace. Further, we educate our customers on how to "stand out in crowd"​ which is so crucial to success in what can be the "sensory overload"​ of competing brands.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 10
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/houston-sign-company.jpeg
Houston Sign Company
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ink-floyd-screen-printing.jpeg
Ink Floyd Screen Printing
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Houston Sign Company
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ink Floyd Screen Printing
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Houston Sign Company in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ink Floyd Screen Printing in 2025.

Incident History — Houston Sign Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Houston Sign Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Ink Floyd Screen Printing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ink Floyd Screen Printing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/houston-sign-company.jpeg
Houston Sign Company
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ink-floyd-screen-printing.jpeg
Ink Floyd Screen Printing
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Houston Sign Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ink Floyd Screen Printing company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Ink Floyd Screen Printing company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Houston Sign Company company.

In the current year, Ink Floyd Screen Printing company and Houston Sign Company company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ink Floyd Screen Printing company nor Houston Sign Company company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Ink Floyd Screen Printing company nor Houston Sign Company company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Ink Floyd Screen Printing company nor Houston Sign Company company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Houston Sign Company company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Houston Sign Company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Houston Sign Company company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Houston Sign Company company employs more people globally than Ink Floyd Screen Printing company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Houston Sign Company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Houston Sign Company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Houston Sign Company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Houston Sign Company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Houston Sign Company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Houston Sign Company nor Ink Floyd Screen Printing holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
References
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
References
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
References