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

Comparison Overview

JCPenneyJCPenney
VS
Boots UKBoots UK
JCPenney

JCPenney

6502 Legacy Drive, Plano, 75024, US

Last Update: 17/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.jcpenney.com
696/1000Weak

As we reinvent ourselves to fit the diversity of America, we are looking for motivated, talented people who can emerge as Warriors in our organization. JCPenney offers an inclusive environment and culture where you can find and define yourself - your style, your purpos...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:35,156
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Boots UK

Boots UK

1 Thane Road, Nottingham, NG90 1BS, GB

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.boots.jobs
755/1000Fair

Boots is the UK’s leading health and beauty retailer with over 52,000 team members and around 1,800 stores,* ranging from local community pharmacies to large destination health and beauty stores. We serve our customers and patients’ wellbeing for life as the leading pr...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:27,086
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
JCPenney

JCPenney

-
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
Boots UK

Boots UK

-
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)

JCPenney has 45.36% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Boots UK in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - JCPenney (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JCPenney cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Boots UK (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boots UK 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...
JCPenney

JCPenney

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JCPAUTCAT1781735087
Boots UK

Boots UK

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BOO74919923
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
BOO2325221222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90647
SUMMARY

ASE/Kalkitech ASE2000 V2 Communication Test Set 2.35 through 2.37 on Windows contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability in the IEC 60870-5-104 TLS client (Task Mode). This allows a network-positioned attacker to bypass certificate validation via a certificate with multiple simultaneous faults, enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack on protected communications.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-90487
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.4.2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file xxl-job-admin/src/main/java/com/xxl/job/admin/business/controller/JobGroupController.java. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-90486
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in openstatusHQ openstatus up to f04c827112f30a11d571ebdad3892826034d6265. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file apps/status-page/src/lib/proxy/resolve-custom-domain-rewrite.ts. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The identifier of the patch is 86f370c9c20074c3c3fdec53a359874b8e670fd4. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue. This issue got fixed with a silent patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-79300
SUMMARY

SEP sesam before 5.2.0.24 mishandles User Authorization with MFA. If AD authentication is configured and MFA is enforced, an attacker can create a second OTP access capability. SEP sesam and Active Directory handle username capitalization differently, which may allow multiple SEP sesam user accounts to be created for the same Active Directory (AD) account. Active Directory treats usernames as case-insensitive, while SEP sesam distinguishes between different letter casing. As a result, the same AD user can be represented by multiple SEP sesam user accounts that differ only in username capitalization. When Active Directory authentication is configured and multi-factor authentication (MFA) is enforced, this behavior may allow an additional OTP Authenticator to be registered for the same AD account, reducing the effectiveness of MFA protection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90485
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in IOBit Uninstaller 15.5.0.11. Affected by this issue is the function sub_11838 of the file IURegistryFilter.sys of the component IOCTL Dispatch Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack requires local access. The exploit has been published and may be used. Identical IURegistryFilter.sys ships across multiple IObit families. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8