Comparison Overview

INPRNT

VS

BELL-MARK DE

INPRNT

Orlando, 32805, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799

INPRNT was founded in 2006 as a service for artists, by artists. We handle all aspects of production in-house, which means we can produce the best quality prints available and provide the highest earnings to artists. We take care of the printing, packaging, shipping, and customer service so that your favorite artists never have to step away from creating the art you love.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 21
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

BELL-MARK DE

Munich, DE
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

For over 60 years, BELL-MARK has been developing innovative solutions for package and carton printing applications in the medical device, pharmaceutical, prepared foods, meat, bakery, dairy, and poultry packaging industries. BELL-MARK offers many in-line printing technologies including piezo inkjet, thermal inkjet, thermal transfer, flexographic, and ink coder, all of which satisfy requirements to print directly onto package and carton substrates.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: None
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/inprnt.jpeg
INPRNT
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/bell-mark-de.jpeg
BELL-MARK DE
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
INPRNT
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BELL-MARK DE
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for INPRNT in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BELL-MARK DE in 2025.

Incident History — INPRNT (X = Date, Y = Severity)

INPRNT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — BELL-MARK DE (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BELL-MARK DE cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/inprnt.jpeg
INPRNT
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bell-mark-de.jpeg
BELL-MARK DE
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

BELL-MARK DE company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to INPRNT company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, BELL-MARK DE company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to INPRNT company.

In the current year, BELL-MARK DE company and INPRNT company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BELL-MARK DE company nor INPRNT company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither BELL-MARK DE company nor INPRNT company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither BELL-MARK DE company nor INPRNT company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither INPRNT company nor BELL-MARK DE company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither INPRNT nor BELL-MARK DE holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BELL-MARK DE company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to INPRNT company.

Neither INPRNT nor BELL-MARK DE holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither INPRNT nor BELL-MARK DE holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither INPRNT nor BELL-MARK DE holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither INPRNT nor BELL-MARK DE holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither INPRNT nor BELL-MARK DE holds HIPAA certification.

Neither INPRNT nor BELL-MARK DE 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.

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
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)

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)

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.

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
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.

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