Comparison Overview

Lingfield Warehousing

VS

Viking Self Storage

Lingfield Warehousing

Lingfield Point, Darlington, County Durham DL1 1RW, US
Last Update: 2025-12-19
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lingfieldwarehousing.co.uk

Established for over 25 years, Lingfield Warehousing & Logistics operate an ambient 200,000 sqft warehouse. We are situated in a highly strategic location close to the A66/A1 at Darlington and within easy reach of Teesport. With ever increasing challenges faced upon our industry, Lingfield Warehousing are at the forefront of development and planning to ensure our business services and levels of customer care remain a cut above the competition. We are more than just a Warehousing Firm. We offer a range of services to assist you in almost every aspect of your business, from helping you source trusted far east manufacturers to storage and dispatch of stock through to specialist decant services, whatever you need we can help. Plus with our PRICE PROMISE GUARANTEE, you can be sure that not only can anyone else do it better than us, but no-one can do it less than us either.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 2
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Viking Self Storage

5 Turnpike Close, Norwich, NR6 5BD, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-19
Between 750 and 799
http://www.VikingSelfStorage.co.uk

Viking Self Storage is a privately owned brand of Self Storage Facilities. The brand was formed in 2012, although the owners have owned and operated other Self Storage brands previously. Viking Self Storage Norwich opened in January 2017 Viking Self Storage Bedford opened in May 2013 and was sold to national operator Storage King in March 2019 The brand is currently seeking new opportunities for expansion. The brand is connected with Yellow Tomato LLP which provides head office support and services the the individual stores

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lingfield-warehousing.jpeg
Lingfield Warehousing
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/viking-self-storage-llp.jpeg
Viking Self Storage
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Lingfield Warehousing
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Viking Self Storage
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Warehousing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lingfield Warehousing in 2025.

Incidents vs Warehousing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Viking Self Storage in 2025.

Incident History — Lingfield Warehousing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lingfield Warehousing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Viking Self Storage (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Viking Self Storage cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lingfield-warehousing.jpeg
Lingfield Warehousing
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/viking-self-storage-llp.jpeg
Viking Self Storage
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Viking Self Storage company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lingfield Warehousing company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Viking Self Storage company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Lingfield Warehousing company.

In the current year, Viking Self Storage company and Lingfield Warehousing company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Viking Self Storage company nor Lingfield Warehousing company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Viking Self Storage company nor Lingfield Warehousing company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Viking Self Storage company nor Lingfield Warehousing company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing company nor Viking Self Storage company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing nor Viking Self Storage holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing company nor Viking Self Storage company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Viking Self Storage company employs more people globally than Lingfield Warehousing company, reflecting its scale as a Warehousing.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing nor Viking Self Storage holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing nor Viking Self Storage holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing nor Viking Self Storage holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing nor Viking Self Storage holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing nor Viking Self Storage holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lingfield Warehousing nor Viking Self Storage holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Versa SASE Client for Windows versions released between 7.8.7 and 7.9.4 contain a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the audit log export functionality. The client communicates user-controlled file paths to a privileged service, which performs file system operations without impersonating the requesting user. Due to improper privilege handling and a time-of-check time-of-use race condition combined with symbolic link and mount point manipulation, a local authenticated attacker can coerce the service into deleting arbitrary directories with SYSTEM privileges. This can be exploited to delete protected system folders such as C:\\Config.msi and subsequently achieve execution as NT AUTHORITY\\SYSTEM via MSI rollback techniques.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
References
Description

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' function in all versions up to, and including, 7.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to inject cross-site scripting into the 'status' parameter of applied jobs for any user.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
References
Description

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 7.7 via the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to send a site-generated email with injected HTML to any user.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
References
Description

The FiboSearch – Ajax Search for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's `thegem_te_search` shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.32.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This vulnerability requires TheGem theme (premium) to be installed with Header Builder mode enabled, and the FiboSearch "Replace search bars" option enabled for TheGem integration.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

The Ultimate Member – User Profile, Registration, Login, Member Directory, Content Restriction & Membership Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 2.11.0 via the ajax_get_members function. This is due to the use of a predictable low-entropy token (5 hex characters derived from md5 of post ID) to identify member directories and insufficient authorization checks on the unauthenticated AJAX endpoint. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract sensitive data including usernames, display names, user roles (including administrator accounts), profile URLs, and user IDs by enumerating predictable directory_id values or brute-forcing the small 16^5 token space.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
References