Comparison Overview

Links Signs and Graphics Ltd

VS

DCK

Links Signs and Graphics Ltd

Links Signs and Graphics Ltd, Blackpool, England, FY1 3RP, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-12

Links Signs and Graphics were established in 2008, on the basis of creating and maintaining links and providing a high-quality signage service. Whilst we have grown as a business year on year we still believe in maintaining strong links with our clients and are looking to create new ones every day of the year.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

DCK

E1 Ballymount Industrial Estate, Walkinstown, Dublin, IE, 12
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

DCK are the current market leaders in the management of personalised consumer data and direct mail in Ireland. Over 90% of our work includes personalised and confidential data. Delivering The right message The right way To the right person With the right channel At the right time is essential for customer engagement. Our mission is to find the best route for your business and generate a multi-channel marketing experience for your customers, maximising your ROI on the way.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 66
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/dck.jpeg
DCK
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
Links Signs and Graphics Ltd
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DCK
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Links Signs and Graphics Ltd in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DCK in 2025.

Incident History — Links Signs and Graphics Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Links Signs and Graphics Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — DCK (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DCK cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/links-signs-and-graphics-ltd.jpeg
Links Signs and Graphics Ltd
Incidents
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dck.jpeg
DCK
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

DCK company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, DCK company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company.

In the current year, DCK company and Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither DCK company nor Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither DCK company nor Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither DCK company nor Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company nor DCK company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd nor DCK holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company nor DCK company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

DCK company employs more people globally than Links Signs and Graphics Ltd company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd nor DCK holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd nor DCK holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd nor DCK holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd nor DCK holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd nor DCK holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Links Signs and Graphics Ltd nor DCK holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N