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

Comparison Overview

Mardel Christian & EducationMardel Christian & Education
VS
NikeNike
Mardel Christian & Education

Mardel Christian & Education

7707 SW 44th St, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, US

Last Update: 26/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mardel.com/
771/1000Fair

Mardel Christian & Education is a faith-based company dedicated to renewing minds and transforming lives through the products we sell and the ministries we support. To this end, we provide a large selection of Bibles, books, movies, gifts, faith-based music and video, c...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:375
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Nike

Nike

One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR, US, 97005

Last Update: 09/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://nike.com/careers
304/1000Critical

NIKE, Inc. is a purpose-driven organization energized by a shared commitment to move the world forward through the power of sport. We champion diversity and amplify individual passions to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world. Here, every te...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:95,347
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mardel Christian & Education

Mardel Christian & Education

-
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
Nike

Nike

-
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 Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mardel Christian & Education in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Nike has 284.62% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Mardel Christian & Education (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mardel Christian & Education 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 - Nike (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nike cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Mardel Christian & Education

Mardel Christian & Education

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Nike

Nike

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NIKALC1783600235
🔒 Incident : Breach
JONGENMCDGOL1775507547
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
NIK1769167310

FAQ

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