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

Comparison Overview

NAPA Auto PartsNAPA Auto Parts
VS
Hallmark CardsHallmark Cards
NAPA Auto Parts

NAPA Auto Parts

2999 Wildwood Pkwy, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30339

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://jobs.genpt.com
790/1000Fair

Through nearly 6,000 auto parts stores and over 16,000 auto care and collision centers in the U.S., NAPA has America’s largest network of parts and care. The NAPA Network is supported by nationwide distribution centers with approximately 800,000 available parts, accesso...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:13,772
Subsidiaries:31
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Hallmark Cards

Hallmark Cards

2501 McGee, Kansas City, Missouri, US, 64108

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
659/1000Weak

Hallmark believes if you care enough you can change the world as we work to help create a more emotionally connected world in every life, every day. Founded in 1910 by a teenage entrepreneur with two shoe boxes of postcards under his arm, Hallmark today is still famil...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:17,275
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NAPA Auto Parts

NAPA Auto Parts

-
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
Hallmark Cards

Hallmark Cards

-
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 NAPA Auto Parts in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Hallmark Cards has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - NAPA Auto Parts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAPA Auto Parts 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 - Hallmark Cards (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hallmark Cards 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...
NAPA Auto Parts

NAPA Auto Parts

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hallmark Cards

Hallmark Cards

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
SALHAL1775967850

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2