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

Comparison Overview

Mark & GrahamMark & Graham
VS
Marks and SpencerMarks and Spencer
Mark & Graham

Mark & Graham

151 Union Street, San Francisco, CA, 94111, US

Last Update: 02/12/2025

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Mark and Graham began with a passion for gift-giving and personalization. With the intention of changing the way we think about personalization, and the support of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Mark and Graham was launched in the fall of 2012. Incorporating great design, e...

NAICS:452
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:18
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Marks and Spencer

Marks and Spencer

Waterside House, London, W2 1NW, GB

Last Update: 16/07/2026

View Profile
100/1000Critical

At M&S, we're dedicated to being the most trusted retailer, prioritising quality and delivering value. Every day, we bring the magic of M&S to our customers, whenever, wherever and however they want to shop with us. For over a century, we've set the standard, doing the ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:40,198
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mark & Graham

Mark & Graham

-
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
Marks and Spencer

Marks and Spencer

-
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 Mark & Graham in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Marks and Spencer has 476.92% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Mark & Graham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mark & Graham 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 - Marks and Spencer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marks and Spencer 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...
Mark & Graham

Mark & Graham

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Marks and Spencer

Marks and Spencer

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
JAGMAR1784183368
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MARVEN1777695899
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MARBYBCRO1777746530

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA