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

Comparison Overview

ITW Global Tire RepairITW Global Tire Repair
VS
Rodan + FieldsRodan + Fields
ITW Global Tire Repair

ITW Global Tire Repair

125 Venture Dr, San Luis Obispo, 93401, US

Last Update: 24/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.itwgtr.com/
759/1000Fair

ITW Global Tire Repair specializes in innovating, manufacturing and selling world-leading tire repair products from the trusted brands Slime and Fix-a-Flat. We also service the automotive OEM market across the globe. With well-recognized, enduring brands, we pride ...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:37
Subsidiaries:83
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

60 Spear Street, San Francisco, CA, US, 94105

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
782/1000Fair

We are Rodan + Fields, founded by Stanford-trained dermatologists with a mission to revolutionize skincare for women everywhere. Our products are dermatologist-developed and inspired by Women-Backed Science™, delivering real, visible results. We understand what works f...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:18,226
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ITW Global Tire Repair

ITW Global Tire Repair

-
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
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ITW Global Tire Repair in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rodan + Fields in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ITW Global Tire Repair (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ITW Global Tire Repair cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Rodan + Fields (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rodan + Fields 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...
ITW Global Tire Repair

ITW Global Tire Repair

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53541
SUMMARY

OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, prior to commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified. These bypassed arguments are not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so `ot_`-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely; set as environment variables — via `buildEnv()`, with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command; and included in the template context — available as `.Arguments.ot_*` in template rendering. Commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53525
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 0.3.1 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay authentication uses non-constant-time string comparison functions (weechat_strcasecmp and strcmp) to verify password hashes and plaintext passwords. An attacker can exploit timing differences to extract the server-computed hash character by character, then authenticate using the correct hash without knowing the password. Version 4.9.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
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:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-53524
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 4.3.0 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay module's WebSocket permessage-deflate decompression function relay_websocket_inflate() has no upper bound on output size. An authenticated relay user can send a small compressed WebSocket frame (~100 bytes) that decompresses to gigabytes, exhausting all server memory and crashing the entire WeeChat process. The api protocol enables permessage-deflate and requires authentication before WebSocket upgrade. Version 4.9.1 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53499
SUMMARY

FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with  --http.enabled=false  while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49360
SUMMARY

Recce is a data-validation toolkit for enhanced dbt (data build tool) PR review. Prior to version 1.50.0, OSS server deployments that expose the server to an untrusted network without authentication are vulnerable to unauthenticated SQL execution through the query run API. When Recce is configured with a DuckDB-backed project, an attacker can use DuckDB filesystem primitives to read and write files accessible to the Recce server process. The impact depends on how Recce is deployed, but may include disclosure of local files, tampering with Recce/dbt artifacts, modification of browser-served static files leading to stored XSS, and modification of application files if those paths are writable. If Recce is run as root, file access occurs with root privileges inside that host or container. This issue has been patched in Recce `v1.50.0`. Users should upgrade to Recce `v1.50.0` or later. The patch restricts unsafe file read/write behavior for DuckDB-backed query execution and hardens the affected query path. Other warehouse adapters have also been reviewed for similar exposure. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should avoid exposing `recce server` to the public internet or any untrusted network. Recommended mitigations include enabling authentication or placing Recce behind an authenticated reverse proxy/VPN, running Recce as a non-root user, using a read-only application filesystem where possible, and ensuring that sensitive files or credentials are not available to the Recce process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA