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

Comparison Overview

Interoptik ASInteroptik AS
VS
Lojas Renner S.A.Lojas Renner S.A.
Interoptik AS

Interoptik AS

Eyvind Lychesvei 19 A, Sandvika, NO, 1300

Last Update: 07/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.interoptik.no/
770/1000Fair

Interoptik er en av Norges ledende optikerkjeder. Vårt mål er å være verdens beste innen syn og øyehelse for våre kunder. Interoptik er en av Norges ledende optikerkjeder med 76 butikker over hele landet. Hos Interoptik møter du eksperter som tar ansvar for din øyehelse...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:143
Subsidiaries:60
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lojas Renner S.A.

Lojas Renner S.A.

Av. Joaquim Porto Villanova, 401, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, BR, 91410400

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
780/1000Fair

We are a fashion and lifestyle ecosystem connected to our customers through digital channels and more than 600 stores in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. From the beginning, everything we do is to enchant. This is how our story began, in 1965, conquering important milesto...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:30,158
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Interoptik AS

Interoptik AS

-
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
Lojas Renner S.A.

Lojas Renner S.A.

-
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 Interoptik AS in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lojas Renner S.A. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Interoptik AS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Interoptik AS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Lojas Renner S.A. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lojas Renner S.A. 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...
Interoptik AS

Interoptik AS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lojas Renner S.A.

Lojas Renner S.A.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9