Comparison Overview

Insty-Prints of Rochester

VS

Global Packaging, Inc.

Insty-Prints of Rochester

2410 North Broadway, Rochester, MN, 55906, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.instyroch.com

INSTY-PRINTS of Rochester Minnesota is your one stop shop for all your printing, signs, banners, and marketing solutions. Whether it is a business presentation, large engineering document, or personal project, Insty-Prints will help you every step of the way. Our professional staff and experienced crew will give your projects a professional, clean, and polished look .We offer a vast array of services from start to finish. It is our focus to make you look good and put your marketing dollars to best work for you. We offer digital printing, printing and publishing, graphic design, business printing, banner printing, and sign printing to name a few of our services.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Global Packaging, Inc.

209 Brower Avenue, Oaks, PA, 19456, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.glopkg.com

•We offer High Definition Printing in up to 10 Colors • Converted Poly Bags tailored to meet your performance Specifications • Extrusion: Monolayer and Co-extruded, and Recycled Content polyethylene films (PCR and PIR) • Lamination & Slitting •Specializing in products for top Consumer Products Companies •Markets include Diapers, Sanitary, Pet Food, Snack Foods, Towel & Tissue, Candy & Baked Goods,& more •Supply Chain Management •Excellent Geographic Locations in Oaks, PA, Hamlet, NC •Continuous Reinvestment in the latest Technology •First Wide Web Flexo Printer to be awarded certification as a Sustainable Green Printer •Our Reputation as a Quality Printer of High End Packaging covers customers’ demands from Private Label to Premium Label AIB Certification GMI Certified

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 131
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/insty-prints-of-rochester.jpeg
Insty-Prints of Rochester
—
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/global-packaging-inc.jpeg
Global Packaging, Inc.
—
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
Insty-Prints of Rochester
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Global Packaging, Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Insty-Prints of Rochester in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Global Packaging, Inc. in 2025.

Incident History — Insty-Prints of Rochester (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Insty-Prints of Rochester cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Global Packaging, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Global Packaging, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/insty-prints-of-rochester.jpeg
Insty-Prints of Rochester
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/global-packaging-inc.jpeg
Global Packaging, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Global Packaging, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Insty-Prints of Rochester company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Global Packaging, Inc. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Insty-Prints of Rochester company.

In the current year, Global Packaging, Inc. company and Insty-Prints of Rochester company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Global Packaging, Inc. company nor Insty-Prints of Rochester company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Global Packaging, Inc. company nor Insty-Prints of Rochester company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Global Packaging, Inc. company nor Insty-Prints of Rochester company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester company nor Global Packaging, Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester nor Global Packaging, Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester company nor Global Packaging, Inc. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Global Packaging, Inc. company employs more people globally than Insty-Prints of Rochester company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester nor Global Packaging, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester nor Global Packaging, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester nor Global Packaging, Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester nor Global Packaging, Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester nor Global Packaging, Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Insty-Prints of Rochester nor Global Packaging, Inc. 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