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

Comparison Overview

Pearle VisionPearle Vision
VS
ZARAZARA
Pearle Vision

Pearle Vision

420 5th Ave, None, New York, NY, US, 10018

Last Update: 11/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pearlevision.com
776/1000Fair

Don't take the care of your eyes for granted, trust them to the people who have been caring for eyes since 1961. At every neighborhood Pearle Vision, we believe that from the exam room to the retail floor you deserve genuine EyeCare. We're experts who know every appoint...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:2,107
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ZARA

ZARA

Arteixo, A Coruña, ES, 15143

Last Update: 31/05/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.zara.com/es/en/
636/1000Poor

Zara is a forward-thinking force in fashion; embodying what is possible when responsibility and aspiration are accessible to all. By bringing more thoughtful style to the world, we aim to provide everyone, no matter where they are, with the inspiringly beautiful, always...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:43,877
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pearle Vision

Pearle Vision

-
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
ZARA

ZARA

-
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 Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pearle Vision in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

ZARA has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Pearle Vision (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pearle Vision 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 - ZARA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ZARA 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...
Pearle Vision

Pearle Vision

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ZARA

ZARA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ZAR1780187075
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
ZAR1778228840

FAQ

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