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
Hobby LobbyHobby Lobby
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
Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby

7707 Southwest 44th Street, Oklahoma City, OK, US, 73179

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.hobbylobby.com
798/1000Fair

In 1970, entrepreneurs David and Barbara Green, along with their young family, began making miniature picture frames in their garage. A few years later, on August 3, 1972, the Green family opened the first Hobby Lobby store with a mere 300 square feet of retail space. ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:17,626
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Hobby Lobby in 2026.

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 - Hobby Lobby (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hobby Lobby 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...
Mark & Graham

Mark & Graham

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-112112
SUMMARY

An IPv6 FlowSpec validation bypass in the CZ.NIC BIRD Internet Routing Daemon allows an established BGP peer to inject FlowSpec rules matching destinations outside the address space authorized by the unicast-route validation procedure. With validation enabled on the receiving flow6 channel, BIRD fails to reject a destination prefix component with a nonzero offset, contrary to RFC 8956 section 5. It validates a reconstructed prefix with zero-filled skipped bits, although the original FlowSpec component can match a broader set of IPv6 addresses. Given a suitable unicast route from the peer, the rule can pass validation and, where export policy permits, be propagated to downstream peers. Downstream enforcement may cause unauthorized traffic filtering or redirection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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-2026-112111
SUMMARY

The Bootstrap Shortcodes plugin for WordPress before 3.4.6 is vulnerable to stored XSS via the id attribute of the [bs_tcontent] shortcode. The bs_tcontent() shortcode handler in inc/bs_tabs.php emits the id attribute value into an unquoted HTML attribute. esc_attr() is applied, but it does not encode space characters, so a space in the supplied value terminates the attribute and any following text is parsed as additional HTML attributes, including JavaScript event handlers. This allows authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject arbitrary web script that executes in the browser of any user who views the page and interacts with the injected element.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-112029
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in diem-project diem up to 5.1.3. This affects an unknown part of the file lib/model/doctrine/PluginDmUser.class.php of the component SHA1 Handler. Such manipulation of the argument salt/password leads to password hash with insufficient computational effort. The attack needs to be performed locally. The attack requires a high level of complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 1.0
Complexity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-112028
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in light0011 cms c774dce31c6df0055568a8d5c53d964d99be199d/f72cf46f601efb2a0618c3814cc2f61380b38930. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file App/Home/Controller/VoteController.class.php of the component Vote Handler. This manipulation of the argument X-Requested-With causes business logic errors. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-112027
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in light0011 cms c774dce31c6df0055568a8d5c53d964d99be199d/f72cf46f601efb2a0618c3814cc2f61380b38930. Affected by this vulnerability is the function file_exists of the file Public/Home/js/uploadify/check-exists.php of the component Uploadify. The manipulation of the argument filename results in file and directory information exposure. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9