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

Comparison Overview

IPC Shopping CentreIPC Shopping Centre
VS
John Lewis PartnershipJohn Lewis Partnership
IPC Shopping Centre

IPC Shopping Centre

2 Jalan PJU 7/2, Petaling Jaya, 47810, MY

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.ipc.com.my/
767/1000Fair

Open in December 2003, IPC Shopping Centre is Malaysia’s first shopping centre anchored by IKEA. Located in Damansara, it is the first of five meeting places within Ikano Centres shopping centre portfolio, serving as a community hub and shopping destination for those li...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:37
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
John Lewis Partnership

John Lewis Partnership

Carlisle Place, London, SW1P 1BX, GB

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.jlpjobs.com
801/1000Good

We’re the largest employee owned business in the UK and home of our cherished brands, John Lewis and Waitrose. We’re not just employees, we’re Partners, driven by our purpose to build a happier world. As we look to our future, there’s never been a more exciting time to ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:36,738
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IPC Shopping Centre

IPC Shopping Centre

-
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
John Lewis Partnership

John Lewis Partnership

-
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 IPC Shopping Centre in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for John Lewis Partnership in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - IPC Shopping Centre (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IPC Shopping Centre cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - John Lewis Partnership (X = Date, Y = Severity)

John Lewis Partnership cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
IPC Shopping Centre

IPC Shopping Centre

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
John Lewis Partnership

John Lewis Partnership

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
3.1