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

Comparison Overview

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.
VS
SEPHORASEPHORA
Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Büyükdere Caddesi, Esentepe, 34394, TR

Last Update: 25/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.kanyonyonetim.com
768/1000Fair

KANYON YÖNETİM İŞLETİM VE PAZARLAMA A.Ş. Kanyon Alışveriş Merkezi’ni yönetmek üzere kurulmuş olan Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş., bu konudaki başarısının ardından ortakların diğer gayrimenkul projelerini de yönetmeye başlamıştır. Bunların arasında Eczacıbaşı’...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:73
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
SEPHORA

SEPHORA

Neuilly sur Seine, 92576 , FR

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

Sephora is the world’s leading global prestige beauty retail brand. With our curation of more than 500 brands and our own label, Sephora Collection, we offer the most unique and diverse range of prestige beauty products, tailored to our customers’ needs from fragrance t...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:49,309
Subsidiaries:75
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

-
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
SEPHORA

SEPHORA

-
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 Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

SEPHORA has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş. 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 - SEPHORA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SEPHORA 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...
Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
SEPHORA

SEPHORA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SEPTHE1780490835
🔒 Incident : Breach
SEP1780946094
🔒 Incident : Breach
SEP2372423

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57995
SUMMARY

phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56777
SUMMARY

n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
3.1
CVE-2026-56700
SUMMARY

Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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: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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56415
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56413
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9