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

Comparison Overview

Lidl GBLidl GB
VS
ArgosArgos
Lidl GB

Lidl GB

14 Kingston Rd, Chessington, Surbiton KT5 9NU, London, KT5 9NU, GB

Last Update: 10/07/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://lidlcareers.co.uk
798/1000Fair

At Lidl, we’re a pretty close bunch. Sure, we all bring something unique to the table — but when you scratch below the surface, we’ve also got a whole lot in common. We’re plate spinners and problem solvers, working hard to keep homes stocked up across the UK. Just lik...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:14,675
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Argos

Argos

Argos Head Office 489-499 Avebury Boulevard, Milton Keynes, MK9 2NW, GB

Last Update: 18/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://argos.careers/
820/1000Good

Since 1973, Argos has been growing, and fast, and today we’re proud to be one of the nation’s biggest omnichannel retailers. As we’ve gone digital in a big way over the years, our business has changed massively, but our commitment and passion for our values and customer...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:10,798
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lidl GB

Lidl GB

-
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
Argos

Argos

-
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 Lidl GB in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Argos has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Lidl GB (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lidl GB 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 - Argos (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Argos 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...
Lidl GB

Lidl GB

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Argos

Argos

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ARG1781807444
🔒 Incident : Breach
ARG201524323
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
ARG2051261122

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84857
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in sigoden aichat up to 0.30.4. This affects an unknown function of the file src/serve.rs of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation causes uncontrolled memory allocation. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in rowboatlabs rowboat up to 0.9.1. The impacted element is the function request.text/req.json of the file apps/rowboat/app/api/composio/webhook/route.ts of the component Composio Webhook Endpoint. The manipulation results in denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 0.9.2 is sufficient to resolve this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The legacy Next.js app was deleted at 0.9.2 rather than patched, leaving no security control behind.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84852
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Reader Tools PDF Reader App 98.8 on Android. The affected element is the function ActSplashNew.handleDeeplink of the component File Handler. The manipulation of the argument _display_name leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 3.2
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-84452
SUMMARY

Windows ML CLI is a command line tool for building portable, performant, and high-quality AI models for Windows ML. Prior to 0.4.0, the src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py component exposes WinML CLI commands through a localhost HTTP API without authentication and configures the allow_origins setting as a wildcard in both src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py and src/winml/modelkit/serve/app.py. A malicious website loaded by a user can send cross-origin requests to /v1/cli/build or /v1/cli/config and set the trust_remote_code parameter to true, which is converted to the --trust-remote-code command-line flag without validation. This reaches AutoConfig.from_pretrained with trust_remote_code=True in src/winml/modelkit/loader/_autoconfig.py and imports Python code from an attacker-controlled model repository, resulting in arbitrary code execution as the server user. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-84292
SUMMARY

fast-uri serializes the port component of a URI without validating it. When recomposing the authority, the userinfo and host components are escaped but the port is concatenated verbatim, so a port value that is not a sequence of digits can inject authority delimiters, demoting the intended host to userinfo and pointing the authority at an attacker-controlled host. Both fast-uri and Node's URL read the result back as the attacker's host with no error, so re-validating the built URI does not catch it. This affects applications that build URIs from parts and assign untrusted data to the port component through the serialize, normalize, or equal functions in their object forms. The issue affects fast-uri versions before 2.4.6, from 3.0.0 before 3.1.7, and from 4.0.0 before 4.1.4. It is fixed in 2.4.6, 3.1.7, and 4.1.4, where recomposeAuthority rejects any port that is not a digit sequence per RFC 3986.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9