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

Comparison Overview

Moosejaw MountaineeringMoosejaw Mountaineering
VS
Lowe's Companies, Inc.Lowe's Companies, Inc.
Moosejaw Mountaineering

Moosejaw Mountaineering

32200 North Avis, Madison Heights, MI, 48071, US

Last Update: 06/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.moosejaw.com
769/1000Fair

Moosejaw was started in 1992 by two wilderness guides driven by their enthusiasm for the outdoors and ascots. The company is based in Madison Heights, Michigan with stores throughout Michigan, Illinois, Missouri and Colorado. Moosejaw is also one of the top online out...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:163
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Lowe's Companies, Inc.

1000 Lowes Blvd, Mooresville, 28117, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://talent.lowes.com
807/1000Good

Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (NYSE: LOW) is a FORTUNE® 50 home improvement company serving approximately 20 million customers a week in the United States. Lowe’s and its related businesses operate or service more than 2,200 home improvement and hardware stores and employ over...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:107,016
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Moosejaw Mountaineering

Moosejaw Mountaineering

-
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
Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Lowe's Companies, Inc.

-
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 Moosejaw Mountaineering in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lowe's Companies, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Moosejaw Mountaineering (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Moosejaw Mountaineering cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Lowe's Companies, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lowe's Companies, Inc. 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...
Moosejaw Mountaineering

Moosejaw Mountaineering

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOW144072725
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOW027072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53646
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when a `ClientPasswordReset` record already exists for a client (from a previous unexpired reset request), subsequent calls to the `reset_password` guest API endpoint reuse the existing token instead of generating a new one. The 15-minute validity window is anchored to the first request's `created_at` timestamp, not the time of the most recent email. An attacker who obtained the original reset link remains able to use it even after the victim requests a new reset, because the original token is never invalidated or rotated. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Configure a reverse proxy (e.g., Nginx, Apache, Cloudflare) to apply per-IP rate limiting to the `/client/reset-password` endpoint to minimize the window of opportunity, and/or manually clear expired `client_password_reset` records from the database after a client reports a suspected compromise.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53645
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow a low-privileged staff account to grant arbitrary module permissions to itself through the admin API, resulting in persistent privilege escalation. A staff user that only has `staff.create_and_edit_staff` can call `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` targeting their own account and write any permission structure, bypassing the intended role-based access control boundary. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Restrict the `staff.create_and_edit_staff` permission to only highly trusted staff members and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` to specific trusted roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53644
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions 0.5.3 through 0.7.2 allow authenticated clients to both read and reset API key service secrets for orders that are no longer in an `active` state (e.g., `suspended`, `canceled`). The root cause is missing order-state validation in two client API endpoints, despite an `isActive()` helper already existing in the `Serviceapikey` module and the frontend UI correctly gating access on `order.status == 'active'`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. If the `Serviceapikey` module is not needed, uninstall it to remove the affected endpoints. One may also use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/client/order/service` and `/api/client/serviceapikey/reset` based on application-level order-state logic.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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-2026-53643
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow low-privileged staff accounts to perform unauthorized actions via admin API endpoints. The root cause is a combination of the `can_always_access` module flag (which grants all staff access to certain modules) and insufficient permission checks or unsafe parameter handling on individual endpoints. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. Restrict staff accounts to only those who need access to sensitive settings and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to the affected endpoints to trusted IP addresses or higher-privilege roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53642
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when the "Require Email Confirmation" setting is enabled, a logged-in client with an unverified email address (`email_approved = 0`) can access all client-area pages (e.g. `/client/balance`, `/client/order/list`, `/client/invoice`) and read real account data, including wallet balances and transaction history. The API-side enforcement correctly restricts unverified clients to only profile-related endpoints, but the page-side enforcement is overly permissive, allowing any request whose path starts with `/client`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. No known workarounds that don't involve modifying the source code are available.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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