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

Comparison Overview

Lidl NederlandLidl Nederland
VS
NikeNike
Lidl Nederland

Lidl Nederland

Warandebergstraat 20, Huizen, 1271 ZC, NL

Last Update: 13/07/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.lidl.nl
664/1000Weak

Als onderdeel van de Schwarz Group is Lidl een van de meest toonaangevende ondernemingen in de levensmiddelenbranche in Europa. De organisatie exploiteert momenteel meer dan 12.000 winkels en 200 distributie- en logistieke centra in 31 landen. In 1997 heeft Lidl haar ee...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:6,925
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Nike

Nike

One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR, US, 97005

Last Update: 09/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://nike.com/careers
304/1000Critical

NIKE, Inc. is a purpose-driven organization energized by a shared commitment to move the world forward through the power of sport. We champion diversity and amplify individual passions to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world. Here, every te...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:95,347
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lidl Nederland

Lidl Nederland

-
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
Nike

Nike

-
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)

Lidl Nederland has 9.89% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Nike has 284.62% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Lidl Nederland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Nike 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 Nederland

Lidl Nederland

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LID1783975270
🔒 Incident : Breach
LID1783715540
Nike

Nike

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NIKALC1783600235
🔒 Incident : Breach
JONGENMCDGOL1775507547
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
NIK1769167310

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8