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

Comparison Overview

Love, Bonito Pte LtdLove, Bonito Pte Ltd
VS
Bata GroupBata Group
Love, Bonito Pte Ltd

Love, Bonito Pte Ltd

N/A

Last Update: 30/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.lovebonito.com
702/1000Moderate

Love, Bonito is Southeast Asia’s largest direct-to-consumer, omni-channel womenswear brand. Since our founding in 2010, our core purpose is to celebrate and uplift Asian women, with apparels that are Ready-to-live, not just ready-to-wear. Lovingly made for Asian women...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:4
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Bata Group

Bata Group

Avenue d'ouchy 61, Lausanne, 1006, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bata.com
788/1000Fair

The Bata Group is one of the world's leading manufacturers and retailers of quality footwear. A global concern with more than 32,000 employees, 21 production facilities, over 5,300 stores in more than 70 countries across the globe, Bata has been providing the best shoes...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:15,055
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Love, Bonito Pte Ltd

Love, Bonito Pte 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
Bata Group

Bata Group

-
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 Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

Love, Bonito Pte Ltd has 64.29% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bata Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Love, Bonito Pte Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Love, Bonito Pte Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Bata Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bata Group 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...
Love, Bonito Pte Ltd

Love, Bonito Pte Ltd

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOV1785429619
Bata Group

Bata Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA