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

Comparison Overview

L.A. DarlingL.A. Darling
VS
MenardsMenards
L.A. Darling

L.A. Darling

1401 Hwy 49 B, Paragould, 72450, US

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ladarling.com
770/1000Fair

Since 1897, L.A. Darling has been at the forefront of designing and manufacturing custom retail displays and fixtures that enhance shopper engagement and drive profitability. Our comprehensive services include rapid prototyping, efficient production, and installation, t...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:209
Subsidiaries:74
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Menards

Menards

5101 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, 54703, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

Menards home improvement stores are conveniently located throughout the Midwest in a 14-state region. From the novice do-it-yourselfer to the experienced contractor, Menards has something for everyone! As a family-owned and operated business, Menards is truly dedicated ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:21,857
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
L.A. Darling

L.A. Darling

-
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
Menards

Menards

-
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 L.A. Darling in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Menards in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - L.A. Darling (X = Date, Y = Severity)

L.A. Darling 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 - Menards (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Menards 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...
L.A. Darling

L.A. Darling

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Menards

Menards

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-13512
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Databend up to 1.2.881 on HTTP. This affects the function ClientSessionManager::state_key of the file src/query/service/src/servers/http/v1/session/client_session_manager.rs of the component Tenant Handler. The manipulation leads to authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
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-2026-13511
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in VoltAgent up to 2.1.17. Affected by this issue is the function handleGetMemoryConversation of the file packages/server-core/src/handlers/memory.handlers.ts of the component Memory REST API. Executing a manipulation of the argument conversationId can lead to improper authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/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
1.6
CVE-2026-13510
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in SimStudioAI sim up to 0.6.92. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality in the library apps/sim/lib/core/security/deployment.ts of the component Password Protection Handler. Performing a manipulation results in use of weak hash. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-13509
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in RAGapp up to 0.1.5. Affected is the function FileHandler.upload_file/FileHandler.remove_file of the file src/ragapp/backend/controllers/files.py of the component Knowledge File Handler. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
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-2026-13508
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in khoj-ai khoj up to 2.0.0-beta.28. This impacts an unknown function of the file src/khoj/routers/api_chat.py of the component Conversation Sharing Handler. This manipulation of the argument conversation.agent causes incorrect authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
2.1