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

Comparison Overview

Oxford IndustriesOxford Industries
VS
Under ArmourUnder Armour
Oxford Industries

Oxford Industries

999 Peachtree St NE, Atlanta, 30309, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.oxfordinc.com
656/1000Weak

With more than 80 years of experience, Oxford has built a house of emotionally resonant lifestyle brands that can stand the test of time and trends. We are the parent company behind the most beloved lifestyle brands in the U.S. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Oxford is no...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:328
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Under Armour

Under Armour

101 Performance Dr, Baltimore, 21230, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
100/1000Critical

Our Belief: WE USE THE POWER OF SPORTS TO EXPAND EVERY PLAYING FIELD. Our Obsession: WE ARE OBSESSED WITH ATHLETES WHO STRIVE FOR MORE – IN SPORTS, IN LIFE, AND IN THE WORLD. Our Mission: TO INSPIRE ATHLETES WITH INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS THEY CAN’T LI...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:13,030
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Oxford Industries

Oxford Industries

-
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 Oxford Industries in 2026.

Incidents

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

Under Armour has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Oxford Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Oxford Industries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Oxford Industries

Oxford Industries

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
OXF1764813784
Under Armour

Under Armour

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9