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

Comparison Overview

NAME ITNAME IT
VS
Forever 21Forever 21
NAME IT

NAME IT

Fredskovvej 1, Brande, Central Denmark Region 7330, DK

Last Update: 17/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.nameit.com/
764/1000Fair

NAME IT is a part of BESTSELLER and started out as EXIT in 1986. In 1996 NAME IT was introduced as a sub brand and in 2008 EXIT was rebranded as NAME IT. Today NAME IT is represented in more than 20 markets across Europe, Asia, North America, South America and Austr...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Forever 21

Forever 21

3880 Mission Road, Los Angeles, 90031, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.forever21.com
727/1000Moderate

Forever 21 continues to be a fashion industry leader with a mission to make the latest trends accessible to all. F21 persists on staying ahead of innovation and providing styles and fit that our customers love. While reinventing for now and beyond, we’re seeking passion...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:19,323
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NAME IT

NAME IT

-
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
Forever 21

Forever 21

-
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 Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NAME IT in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Forever 21 in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NAME IT (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAME IT 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 - Forever 21 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Forever 21 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...
NAME IT

NAME IT

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Forever 21

Forever 21

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
FOR22111923
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FOR612072625
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FOR801050924

FAQ

Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between NAME IT company and Forever 21 company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between NAME IT and Forever 21, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between NAME IT and Forever 21, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - NAME IT or Forever 21 ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - NAME IT or Forever 21 ?
Between NAME IT and Forever 21, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between NAME IT and Forever 21, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19917
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in code-projects Online Food Order System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file delete_food_items1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument checkbox can lead to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-74767
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in its handling of DAA (Direct Access Archive) files. When extracting the internal ISO image from a DAA archive, compressed chunks were decompressed using zlib.decompress() without enforcing a limit on the resulting uncompressed data. An attacker able to submit a crafted DAA file containing highly compressed data could cause Pandora to decompress a relatively small input into a very large amount of data in memory. Because the decompressed chunks are accumulated to construct the internal ISO image, this could result in excessive memory consumption and potentially CPU exhaustion, causing the extraction worker to become unresponsive, terminate, or affect the availability of the Pandora service. The patch introduces bounded decompression using decompressobj().decompress() with max_extracted_filesize, verifies the cumulative size of decompressed chunks, and raises a dedicated ZipBomb exception when the configured limit is exceeded. Pandora then aborts extraction and reports the file as too large.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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: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-2026-74764
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a path traversal vulnerability in its TAR archive extraction functionality. When processing a submitted TAR archive, the extractor passed archive member names directly to Python's tarfile.TarFile.extract() without applying an extraction filter. An attacker able to submit a specially crafted TAR archive containing malicious member paths, such as paths using ../ sequences or absolute paths, could cause extracted files to be written outside the intended extraction directory. This may allow the attacker to overwrite files accessible to the Pandora worker process and could potentially result in application compromise, arbitrary code execution, or denial of service depending on the files targeted and the privileges of the Pandora process. The vulnerability is corrected by using Python's filter='data' extraction filter, which rejects or sanitizes dangerous TAR members, including paths that escape the destination directory and unsafe link targets. The weakness corresponds to MITRE's general path traversal category, which includes archive extraction cases where attacker-controlled filenames cause files to be written outside the intended directory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-73055
SUMMARY

Shescape before 2.1.15 (and 3.0.0 before 3.0.2) fails to properly escape tilde (~) characters in assignment contexts on Unix systems where the shell is explicitly configured to "sh" or true and /bin/sh points to BusyBox. Using the escape and escapeAll APIs with untrusted input in an assignment prefixed to a command, an attacker can inject a tilde payload to disclose the user's home directory location and, depending on usage, alter the location on which a command operates.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-73054
SUMMARY

SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the WebSocket endpoint caused by differential parsing of query parameters between authentication exemption and session quarantine checks. Unauthenticated attackers can craft a malicious WebSocket URI with duplicated query parameters to bypass access auth code validation and receive the live kernel event stream including document identifiers, titles, and operation logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9