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

Comparison Overview

NextNext
VS
TargetTarget
Next

Next

Enderby, Leicester, Leicestershire, GB, LE19 4AT

Last Update: 05/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://careers.next.co.uk/
811/1000Good

At Next we never underestimate what we can do. Bring your energy, play to your strengths and never shy away from change. Push yourself and back others. Make things happen that will be bigger and better than before. Come and work for one of the UK’s biggest retailers. ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:25,463
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Target

Target

1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, 55403, US

Last Update: 06/05/2026

View Profile
733/1000Moderate

Target is one of the world’s most recognized brands — and one of America’s leading retailers — known for bringing joy to everyday life. We create meaningful experiences for our guests by combining value, inspiration and innovation in ways no one else can. Beyond our sto...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:173,307
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Next

Next

-
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
Target

Target

-
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 Next in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Target has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Next 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 - Target (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Target 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...
Next

Next

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Target

Target

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAR1768244770
🔒 Incident : Breach
TARWEG1777381148
🔒 Incident : Breach
WEGTAR1778027645

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1