Comparison Overview

Oregon Screen Impressions

VS

Calev Systems

Oregon Screen Impressions

None
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.oregonscreen.com

Since 1984, OSI has grown from a humble one-person operation to one of the largest screen printing and embroidery companies in the Northwest. With a focus on high-quality screen printing, we serve a diverse range of clients, from local businesses to international brands. We specialize in a variety of services to meet all your branding needs: screen printing, embroidery, promotional goods, finishing and fulfillment. Our goal is to craft the highest quality branded gear that helps our clients - regardless of size or industry - look fantastic and reach new heights.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 44
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Calev Systems

5575 NW 36th St, Miami Springs, Florida, 33166, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.calevsystems.com

Calev Systems is committed to providing our customers with more value for their marketing investments. We offer a comprehensive range of solutions for our clients to best optimize their marketing campaigns. Calev Systems will conduct a full-scale audit of your overall marketing spend to identify the right components that will create cost efficiencies with the best quality and return on your investment. The Calev team is comprised of various subject matter experts who manage this process and see it through from end to end. OUR VALUE PROPOSITION - Efficient marketing execution - Supply chain management - Award-winning quality - Domestic and International capabilities - Improved ROI for marketing spend - Shortened production cycles - Increased marketing response rates - Improved delivery schedules OUR CORE VALUES - Be the job (think it through from beginning to end) - We care about how our actions affect others (respect & outcome) - We make it happen - We give our word and keep our word - Treat it like you own it - We are financially responsible Learn more at www.calevsystems.com

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 53
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/oregon-screen-impressions.jpeg
Oregon Screen Impressions
—
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/calevsystems.jpeg
Calev Systems
—
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
Oregon Screen Impressions
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Calev Systems
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Oregon Screen Impressions in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Calev Systems in 2025.

Incident History — Oregon Screen Impressions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Oregon Screen Impressions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Calev Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Calev Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/oregon-screen-impressions.jpeg
Oregon Screen Impressions
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/calevsystems.jpeg
Calev Systems
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Oregon Screen Impressions company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Calev Systems company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Calev Systems company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Oregon Screen Impressions company.

In the current year, Calev Systems company and Oregon Screen Impressions company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Calev Systems company nor Oregon Screen Impressions company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Calev Systems company nor Oregon Screen Impressions company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Calev Systems company nor Oregon Screen Impressions company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions company nor Calev Systems company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions nor Calev Systems holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions company nor Calev Systems company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Calev Systems company employs more people globally than Oregon Screen Impressions company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions nor Calev Systems holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions nor Calev Systems holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions nor Calev Systems holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions nor Calev Systems holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions nor Calev Systems holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Oregon Screen Impressions nor Calev Systems holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
References
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
References
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
References