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

Comparison Overview

JourneysJourneys
VS
H&MH&M
Journeys

Journeys

535 Marriott Dr, Nashville, Tennessee, 37214, US

Last Update: 09/02/2026

View Profile
782/1000Fair

Journeys is a teen retail leader with an emphasis on footwear and unique specialty items including apparel, backpacks, hats and accessories. With more than 800 stores in all 50 US states, Puerto Rico and Canada, Journeys offers the most popular brands that cater to the ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:7,538
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
H&M

H&M

Vasagatan 7, Stockholm, Stockholm County, SE, 111 20

Last Update: 05/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://career.hm.com/
817/1000Good

At H&M, we welcome you to be yourself and feel like you truly belong. Help us reimagine the future of an entire industry by making everyone look, feel, and do good. We take pride in our history of making fashion accessible to everyone and led by our values we strive to...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:67,647
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Journeys

Journeys

-
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
H&M

H&M

-
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 Journeys in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for H&M in 2026.

Incidents

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

Journeys 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 - H&M (X = Date, Y = Severity)

H&M 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...
Journeys

Journeys

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
H&M

H&M

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56082
SUMMARY

Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the SECURITY DEFINER PostgREST RPC function public.record_build_time, which is granted to the anon role and callable with only the public Supabase publishable (sb_publishable_*) anon key. An unauthenticated attacker can insert rows into public.build_logs for arbitrary organizations and, because the function uses ON CONFLICT (build_id, org_id) DO UPDATE, can overwrite existing usage/billing records by reusing the same build_id for a target org. This enables cross-tenant tampering of billing build logs and financial-impact denial of service by inflating billable build time.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56081
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication logic flaw that lets an attacker register and control an account bound to a victim's email address before that email is verified. By enabling two-factor authentication on the pre-registered account, the attacker gains control over the account claimed under the victim's identity, allowing them to read and modify its state and enforce organization-level policies, while the legitimate user is denied access to the account tied to their own email.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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: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
3.9
CVE-2026-56080
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a flaw in the Enforce Password Policy feature: after a Super Admin enables the policy and successfully changes their password to a compliant one, the backend does not update the password-compliance state. As a result, the backend continues to treat the account as non-compliant and repeatedly forces password-reset prompts, permanently locking the Super Admin out of organization access (organization lockout / denial of service) despite valid authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-56079
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in PostgREST endpoints that allows org-scoped read API keys to access other tenants' webhook secrets and delivery logs. Attackers can query the webhooks and webhook_deliveries endpoints to exfiltrate HMAC signing secrets and delivery payloads, enabling forged webhook events against victim organizations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
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:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56073
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in OTP verification that allows attackers to bypass email verification by modifying server responses. Attackers can intercept OTP verification requests and manipulate HTTP responses to falsely mark verification successful, enabling unauthorized 2FA enablement and account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
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: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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9