Comparison Overview
Lidl Nederland

Lidl Nederland
Warandebergstraat 20, Huizen, 1271 ZC, NL
Last Update: 13/07/2026
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...

no one
RU
Last Update: 13/09/2026
Компания NO ONE более 20 лет занимает лидирующие позиции в розничном сегменте. NO ONE – один из крупнейших дистрибьюторов обуви и аксессуаров ведущих европейских брендов на российском рынке. В портфеле компании NO ONE около 50 европейских марок: Casadei, Fabi, Vici...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Lidl Nederland







no one






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
Lidl Nederland has 11.11% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for no one in 2026.
Incident History - Lidl Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lidl Nederland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - no one (X = Date, Y = Severity)
no one cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Lidl Nederland

no one
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.
A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.
A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).
In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).
A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.