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

Comparison Overview

OOTO OFICIALOOTO OFICIAL
VS
Forever 21Forever 21
OOTO OFICIAL

OOTO OFICIAL

Madrid, ES

Last Update: 04/02/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

Marca de moda masculina muy disfrutona diseñada para censores del aburrimiento que valoran su tiempo por encima de todo. Defiende tu planeta para seguir disfrutando #EgoSostenible

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
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
OOTO OFICIAL

OOTO OFICIAL

-
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 OOTO OFICIAL in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Forever 21 in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - OOTO OFICIAL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OOTO OFICIAL 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...
OOTO OFICIAL

OOTO OFICIAL

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-13512
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Databend up to 1.2.881 on HTTP. This affects the function ClientSessionManager::state_key of the file src/query/service/src/servers/http/v1/session/client_session_manager.rs of the component Tenant Handler. The manipulation leads to authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
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-2026-13511
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in VoltAgent up to 2.1.17. Affected by this issue is the function handleGetMemoryConversation of the file packages/server-core/src/handlers/memory.handlers.ts of the component Memory REST API. Executing a manipulation of the argument conversationId can lead to improper authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-13510
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in SimStudioAI sim up to 0.6.92. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality in the library apps/sim/lib/core/security/deployment.ts of the component Password Protection Handler. Performing a manipulation results in use of weak hash. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-13509
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in RAGapp up to 0.1.5. Affected is the function FileHandler.upload_file/FileHandler.remove_file of the file src/ragapp/backend/controllers/files.py of the component Knowledge File Handler. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
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-2026-13508
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in khoj-ai khoj up to 2.0.0-beta.28. This impacts an unknown function of the file src/khoj/routers/api_chat.py of the component Conversation Sharing Handler. This manipulation of the argument conversation.agent causes incorrect authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
2.1