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

Comparison Overview

iStyle CZ, s.r.o.iStyle CZ, s.r.o.
VS
Ricoh USA, Inc.Ricoh USA, Inc.
iStyle CZ, s.r.o.

iStyle CZ, s.r.o.

Revoluční 1003/3, Praha, undefined, 110 00, CZ

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.istyle.cz
751/1000Fair

iSTYLE je nadnárodní společnost, která v celé střední Evropě provozuje více než 20 prodejen. Na českém trhu jsme od roku 2006 a máme celkem 9 prodejen v Praze, Brně a v Ostravě. Specializujeme se výhradně na prodej výrobků společnosti Apple, k jejichž nejznámějším p...

NAICS:541
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:101
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ricoh USA, Inc.

Ricoh USA, Inc.

300 Eagleview Blvd, Exton, 19341, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ricoh-usa.com/
777/1000Fair

At Ricoh, we bring people, processes, and technology together to make information work for you. We unlock the power of information so organizations can unlock the full potential of their people. We're a leader in information management and digital services, creating com...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:18,441
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
iStyle CZ, s.r.o.

iStyle CZ, s.r.o.

-
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
Ricoh USA, Inc.

Ricoh USA, Inc.

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for iStyle CZ, s.r.o. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ricoh USA, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - iStyle CZ, s.r.o. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

iStyle CZ, s.r.o. 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 - Ricoh USA, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ricoh USA, Inc. 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...
iStyle CZ, s.r.o.

iStyle CZ, s.r.o.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ricoh USA, Inc.

Ricoh USA, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2