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

Comparison Overview

Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North AmericaLush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America
VS
O BoticárioO Boticário
Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America

Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America

8680 Cambie Street, Vancouver, BC, CA, V6P 6M9

Last Update: 06/06/2026

View Profile
543/1000Critical

Founded in 1995 by six co-founders—Mark and Mo Constantine, Rowena Bird, Helen Ambrosen, Liz Bennett, and Paul Greeves—Lush began as a small cosmetics shop in Poole, Dorset, UK. Since then we have been pioneers in the beauty industry, committed to creating fresh, handma...

NAICS:32562
NAICS Definition:Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Employees:3,639
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
O Boticário

O Boticário

Av. Rui Barbosa, 4.110, Parque das Fontes,, São José dos Pinhais, 83.050-010, BR

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.oboticario.com.br
784/1000Fair

A beleza transforma, encanta, conquista e também pode ser conquistada. Eis o ideal de beleza que O Boticário multiplica com seus produtos, lojas e em sua relação com o público. Desde 1977, O Boticário soma inspiração, ousadia, inovação e qualidade, despertando o respei...

NAICS:32562
NAICS Definition:Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Employees:20,990
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America

Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America

-
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
O Boticário

O Boticário

-
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 Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for O Boticário in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - O Boticário (X = Date, Y = Severity)

O Boticário 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...
Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America

Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics North America

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
LUS1780770254
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LUS185221124
O Boticário

O Boticário

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2