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

Comparison Overview

Life Time Inc.Life Time Inc.
VS
Forever Living Products (UK) LtdForever Living Products (UK) Ltd
Life Time Inc.

Life Time Inc.

2902 Corporate Place, Chanhassen, MN, US, 55317

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.lifetime.life/
785/1000Fair

Life Time provides an entertaining, educational, friendly and inviting, functional and innovative experience of uncompromising quality that meets the health and fitness needs of the entire family. Life Time is a wellness pioneer reshaping the way consumers approach the...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:19,900
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

GB

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 850 and 899
http://foreverliving.com/
856/1000Very Good

Forever Living Products and its affiliates are the largest growers, manufacturer and distributors of Aloe Vera products. The key to Forever Living's success is commitment to quality and purity. In order to ensure the highest quality, Forever Living cultivates aloe vera ...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:31,285
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Life Time Inc.

Life Time Inc.

-
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
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

-
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 Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Life Time Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Life Time Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Life Time Inc. 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 - Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd 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...
Life Time Inc.

Life Time Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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