Comparison Overview

no one

VS

Acosta

no one

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, RU
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.noone.ru

Компания NO ONE более 20 лет занимает лидирующие позиции в розничном сегменте. NO ONE – один из крупнейших дистрибьюторов обуви и аксессуаров ведущих европейских брендов на российском рынке. В портфеле компании NO ONE около 50 европейских марок: Casadei, Fabi, Vicini, Baldinini, Braccialini, Giuseppe Zanotti Design и другие громкие имена, которые заставляют сердца поклонников моды биться чаще. Чтобы вещи этих брендов скорее находили своих обладателей, мы открыли десятки бутиков по всей России - от Москвы до Красноярска. На сегодняшний день Компания NO ONE насчитывает более десятка одноименных мультибрендовых бутиков и более 70-ти монобрендовых знаменитых европейских марок. Постоянный рост нашей компании обуславливает потребность в пополнении штата как молодыми кадрами, так и опытными профессионалами. Перспектива карьерного роста и репутация стабильной и престижной компании привлекает, целеустремленных, инициативных, и активных кандидатов стать частью нашей команды . Добро пожаловать в NO ONE!

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 10,982
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Acosta

6600 Corporate Center Parkway, Jacksonville, FL, 32216, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://www.acosta.com

Acosta brings simplicity to retail sales. We act as a catalyst to boldly connect brands, retailers and consumers, fueling growth and building long-term value throughout North America and Europe. We are deeply embedded in every corner of the retail industry, strengthening the local, regional and national relationships between brands and retailers.​ Our team of experts uses deep industry insight, cutting-edge analytics and integrated partnerships to help our clients move ahead with confidence.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 12,991
Subsidiaries: 26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/no-one.jpeg
no one
—
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/acosta.jpeg
Acosta
—
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
no one
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Acosta
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for no one in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta in 2025.

Incident History — no one (X = Date, Y = Severity)

no one cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Acosta cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/no-one.jpeg
no one
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/acosta.jpeg
Acosta
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Acosta company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to no one company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Acosta company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas no one company has not reported any.

In the current year, Acosta company and no one company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Acosta company nor no one company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Acosta company has disclosed at least one data breach, while no one company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Acosta company nor no one company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither no one company nor Acosta company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither no one nor Acosta holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Acosta company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to no one company.

Acosta company employs more people globally than no one company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither no one nor Acosta holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither no one nor Acosta holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither no one nor Acosta holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither no one nor Acosta holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither no one nor Acosta holds HIPAA certification.

Neither no one nor Acosta holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References