Comparison Overview
Markwins Beauty Brands

Markwins Beauty Brands
22067 Ferrero Parkway, None, City of Industry, California, US, 91789
Last Update: 10/03/2026
Since its inception, Markwins Beauty Brands has been setting itself apart from other brands in the cosmetics industry. Markwins was the first to introduce multi-palette compacts to U.S. market and is now a global leader in color cosmetics, cosmetic accessories, and beau...

Avon
Nunn Mills Road, Northampton, GB, NN1 5PA
Last Update: 29/03/2026
Think you know Avon? Think again. We’ve been doing beauty differently for 135 years. Pioneering in listening to women’s needs and speaking out for them. Standing for what matters to them. Supporting their endeavours. We’re a company that connects people through bea...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Markwins Beauty Brands







Avon






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Markwins Beauty Brands in 2026.
Incidents vs Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Avon in 2026.
Incident History - Markwins Beauty Brands (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Markwins Beauty Brands cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Avon (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Avon cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Markwins Beauty Brands

Avon
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.
n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.
Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.
Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.
Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.