Comparison Overview

Midtown Printing & Graphics

VS

IMAGERS

Midtown Printing & Graphics

7720 University Ave, Lubbock, Texas, 79423, US
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.midtownprint.com/

Locally Owned & Operated The printing business is all about making impressions. Midtown Printing and Graphics, in Lubbock, TX makes them every day...on paper. At Midtown, we understand the power of print and the impact it can have on your bottom line. Printing is still the most cost effective form of advertising. Let us show you how a few good ideas can make a great lasting impression on your audience. Midtown Printing has been owned for over 20 years by State Representative John Frullo. He has served as the Representative for District 84 since 2010. As an active community member and strong business leader, John leads Midtown Printing with a focus on quality, craft, and overall good business ethics.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 21
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

IMAGERS

1575 Northside Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30318, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
https://www.imagers.com

IMAGERS, a PHASE:3 company, is a full service Print & Brand Communication company. Founded in 1947, IMAGERS is a leader in quality, technology, and service for design, print, and brand communication. Our experience, expertise, and innovation in the digital era date back to the 1980’s when we pioneered advances in digital printing, large format printing, and e-commerce ordering and fulfillment. Our mission is to provide the highest quality and timely execution for our clients, by continuously researching new technological innovations, and services, that can benefit our customers. We have six areas of expertise: Print, Environmental Graphics, Exhibit Displays, Promotional Products & Apparel, Design, and E-Commerce ordering.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 14
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/midtown-printing-and-graphics.jpeg
Midtown Printing & Graphics
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/imagers.jpeg
IMAGERS
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Midtown Printing & Graphics
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
IMAGERS
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Midtown Printing & Graphics in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IMAGERS in 2025.

Incident History — Midtown Printing & Graphics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Midtown Printing & Graphics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — IMAGERS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IMAGERS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/midtown-printing-and-graphics.jpeg
Midtown Printing & Graphics
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/imagers.jpeg
IMAGERS
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Midtown Printing & Graphics company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to IMAGERS company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, IMAGERS company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Midtown Printing & Graphics company.

In the current year, IMAGERS company and Midtown Printing & Graphics company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither IMAGERS company nor Midtown Printing & Graphics company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither IMAGERS company nor Midtown Printing & Graphics company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither IMAGERS company nor Midtown Printing & Graphics company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics company nor IMAGERS company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics nor IMAGERS holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics company nor IMAGERS company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Midtown Printing & Graphics company employs more people globally than IMAGERS company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics nor IMAGERS holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics nor IMAGERS holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics nor IMAGERS holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics nor IMAGERS holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics nor IMAGERS holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Midtown Printing & Graphics nor IMAGERS holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
References
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
References
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
References