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

Comparison Overview

Markham 1873Markham 1873
VS
Jewel-OscoJewel-Osco
Markham 1873

Markham 1873

undefined, undefined

Last Update: 19/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://bash.com/markham
771/1000Fair

As fashion leaders in the menswear industry, we incorporate our values, as well as our quality and fashion mindset in everything we do. Our whole team is committed to our brand promise to customers and this influences every aspect of our business and builds the strength...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Jewel-Osco

Jewel-Osco

150 Pierce Road, Itasca, 60143, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.jewelosco.com
785/1000Fair

Proudly serving our customers in the Chicagoland area since 1899, Jewel-Osco provides friendly service, quality products and great value. Jewel-Osco operates 188 stores throughout the Chicagoland area, Indiana and Iowa, which is part of a 2,200+ store operation that emp...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:11,682
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Markham 1873

Markham 1873

-
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
Jewel-Osco

Jewel-Osco

-
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 Markham 1873 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jewel-Osco in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Markham 1873 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Markham 1873 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 - Jewel-Osco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jewel-Osco 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...
Markham 1873

Markham 1873

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Jewel-Osco

Jewel-Osco

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Markham 1873 company and Jewel-Osco company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Markham 1873 and Jewel-Osco, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Markham 1873 and Jewel-Osco, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Markham 1873 or Jewel-Osco ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Markham 1873 or Jewel-Osco ?
Between Markham 1873 and Jewel-Osco, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Markham 1873 and Jewel-Osco, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8