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
Old NavyOld Navy
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
Old Navy

Old Navy

2 Folsom Street, San Francisco, 94158, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
802/1000Good

Forget what you know about old-school industry rules. When you work at Old Navy, you’re choosing a different path. From day one, we’ve been on a mission to democratize fashion and make shopping fun again. Our teams make style accessible to everyone, creating high-qualit...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:29,072
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Old Navy

Old Navy

-
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 Old Navy 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 - Old Navy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Navy 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
Old Navy

Old Navy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90603
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Anil-matcha Open-Generative-AI up to 1.0.11/2.0.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /api/upload-binary of the component S3 Upload. Such manipulation of the argument x-proxy-target-url leads to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The name of the patch is f013270957f75e439eaf97eb2a93decb32a4543e. Applying a patch is advised to resolve this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-90602
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Anil-matcha Open-Generative-AI up to 1.0.11/2.0.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function renderHistory of the file ImageStudio.js of the component Studio Components. This manipulation causes cross site scripting. The attack may be initiated remotely. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-90601
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in getzep graphiti up to 0.30.2. Affected is an unknown function of the file server/graph_service/main.py of the component REST API. The manipulation results in improper authentication. The attack can be launched remotely. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-90600
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /pages/inv_edit1.php. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-15892
SUMMARY

The mcumgr SMP settings-management group handlers settings_mgmt_read(), settings_mgmt_write(), and settings_mgmt_delete() in subsys/mgmt/mcumgr/grp/settings_mgmt/src/settings_mgmt.c allocate a key_name buffer (and, for read, a data buffer) via k_malloc() when CONFIG_MCUMGR_GRP_SETTINGS_BUFFER_TYPE_HEAP is enabled, relying on the end: label to k_free() them. When CONFIG_MCUMGR_GRP_SETTINGS_ACCESS_HOOK is also enabled and the application access hook rejects a request by returning status MGMT_CB_ERROR_RC, the handler executed return ret_rc; directly, bypassing end: and leaking the heap allocation on every rejected request. The settings handlers are reachable over the unauthenticated SMP transport (Bluetooth LE, UART, or UDP, depending on product configuration). The access hook is the mechanism applications use to deny unauthorized settings access, and MGMT_CB_ERROR_RC is a common rejection style, so an attacker who can send settings read/write/delete commands that the hook rejects triggers a heap leak on each attempt. Because the leaked memory is never reclaimed until reboot, a sustained stream of rejected requests monotonically exhausts the kernel heap until k_malloc() fails, denying mcumgr service and impacting any other heap consumer on the device — a denial of service. The impact is availability-only; there is no memory corruption or information disclosure. Only configurations that select the heap buffer type, enable the access hook, and register a hook that returns MGMT_CB_ERROR_RC are affected (the default stack buffer type cannot leak).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9