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

Comparison Overview

Nice-Pak Products, LLCNice-Pak Products, LLC
VS
EssilorLuxotticaEssilorLuxottica
Nice-Pak Products, LLC

Nice-Pak Products, LLC

One Blue Hill Plaza, Pearl River, 10965, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.nicepak.com
658/1000Weak

Nice-Pak is a health and wellness manufacturer and a global leader in wet wipe products to clean, disinfect and support healthful living. We partner with distinguished retailers and brand owners to deliver value through innovation, quality, reliability and sustainabilit...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:838
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
EssilorLuxottica

EssilorLuxottica

1-6, Rue Paul Cézanne, Paris, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
830/1000Good

We are EssilorLuxottica, a global leader in the design, manufacture and distribution of advanced vision care products, eyewear and med-tech solutions. Our Mission is to help people around the world to see more and be more by addressing their evolving vision needs, perso...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:73,717
Subsidiaries:34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Nice-Pak Products, LLC

Nice-Pak Products, LLC

-
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
EssilorLuxottica

EssilorLuxottica

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Nice-Pak Products, LLC has 61.69% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EssilorLuxottica in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Nice-Pak Products, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nice-Pak Products, LLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - EssilorLuxottica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EssilorLuxottica 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...
Nice-Pak Products, LLC

Nice-Pak Products, LLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NIC1773880535
🔒 Incident : Breach
NIC626090125
EssilorLuxottica

EssilorLuxottica

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ESS023091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8