Comparison Overview

Mimeda

VS

Mega Holdings

Mimeda

Atatürk Mah. Turgut Özal Bulvarı No:7 Ataşehir, İstanbul, undefined, 34758, TR
Last Update: 2025-02-28 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

Mimeda, Migros tarafından kurulan Türkiye’nin ilk perakende medya firmasıdır. Perakende medya, müşterilerin satın alma anında onlara doğru reklamı göstermeye odaklanan medya türüdür. Perakende medyasını diğer medya türlerinden ayıran en büyük özellik, medya kanallarının çoğunun satın alma verisiyle entegre olmasıdır. Perakende medyası olarak değerlendirilen kanallar hangileridir? Mimeda 15’den fazla pazarlama ve iletişim kanalı bulunuyor, Mağaza içi dijital ekranlar, giriş sensörleri, kasa alanları, online perakende alanları, kişiselleştirilmiş reklam alanları, Migros TV gibi yeni dijital platformları bu kanallar arasında sayılabilir. En büyük idealimiz müşterilerimizin gerçekten kendilerini ilgilendiren reklamları görmesi ve istedikleri markayla etkileşime girmelerini sağlamak. Öte yandan FMCG firmaları, kendi medya bütçelerini en etkin biçimde harcamak istiyorlar. Mimeda gibi perakende medya ekosistemleri, gösterilen reklamın satışa dönüşünü  linkleyebilen ekosistemler oldukları için bu anlamda en verimli pazarlama networkleri olma yönünde ilerliyor.  İletişim için [email protected]

NAICS: 513
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 66
Subsidiaries: 14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Mega Holdings

None
Last Update: 2025-03-14 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

Our vision is to be an ideal leading international network marketing company making website ownership available to everyone, providing a simple state-of-the-art and professionally-developed online product and multi-level training to empower and develop the youths into independent business owners. This is accomplished via a highly competitive compensation payout and easy withdrawal system worldwide.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001+
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/mimeda.jpeg
Mimeda
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/mega-holdings.jpeg
Mega Holdings
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
Mimeda
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mega Holdings
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mimeda in 2025.

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mega Holdings in 2025.

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

Mimeda cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mega Holdings (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mega Holdings cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mimeda.jpeg
Mimeda
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mega-holdings.jpeg
Mega Holdings
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mega Holdings company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Mimeda company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Mega Holdings company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Mimeda company.

In the current year, Mega Holdings company and Mimeda company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mega Holdings company nor Mimeda company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mega Holdings company nor Mimeda company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Mega Holdings company nor Mimeda company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mimeda company nor Mega Holdings company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mimeda nor Mega Holdings holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mimeda company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mega Holdings company.

Mimeda company employs more people globally than Mega Holdings company, reflecting its scale as a Technology, Information and Internet.

Neither Mimeda nor Mega Holdings holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mimeda nor Mega Holdings holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mimeda nor Mega Holdings holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mimeda nor Mega Holdings holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mimeda nor Mega Holdings holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mimeda nor Mega Holdings holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/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
Description

Deck Mate 2 lacks a verified secure-boot chain and runtime integrity validation for its controller and display modules. Without cryptographic boot verification, an attacker with physical access can modify or replace the bootloader, kernel, or filesystem and gain persistent code execution on reboot. This weakness allows long-term firmware tampering that survives power cycles. The vendor indicates that more recent firmware updates strengthen update-chain integrity and disable physical update ports to mitigate related attack avenues.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/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
Description

Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/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
Description

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/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:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. In versions from 38.0.0 to before 38.0.3, the implementation of component-model related host-to-wasm trampolines in Wasmtime contained a bug where it's possible to carefully craft a component, which when called in a specific way, would crash the host with a segfault or assert failure. Wasmtime 38.0.3 has been released and is patched to fix this issue. There are no workarounds.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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