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

Comparison Overview

Oerlikon RiriOerlikon Riri
VS
Under ArmourUnder Armour
Oerlikon Riri

Oerlikon Riri

Via al Gas 3, Mendrisio, 6850, CH

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.riri.com
768/1000Fair

Oerlikon Riri is an experienced brand, looking at historical memory with an innovative soul. With its iconic Riri zippers and Cobrax buttons, it is nowadays a reference in the sector of luxury accessories. The highest level of customization, the innovative and high-qua...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Under Armour

Under Armour

101 Performance Dr, Baltimore, Maryland, US, 21230

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
100/1000Critical

Under Armour is obsessed with being better, stronger, and more focused than anyone else out there. Our mission: to make athletes better. Our vision: to inspire you with performance solutions you never knew you needed and can’t imagine living without. Our values d...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:12,755
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Oerlikon Riri

Oerlikon Riri

-
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
Under Armour

Under Armour

-
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 Oerlikon Riri in 2026.

Incidents

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

Under Armour has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Oerlikon Riri (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Oerlikon Riri 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 - Under Armour (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Under Armour 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...
Oerlikon Riri

Oerlikon Riri

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Under Armour

Under Armour

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UND1769117511
🔒 Incident : Breach
UND1769174822
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UND3492734111825

FAQ

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