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

Comparison Overview

PetSmartPetSmart
VS
RGISRGIS
PetSmart

PetSmart

19601 N. 27th Avenue, Phoenix, 85027, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
743/1000Moderate

At PetSmart, we’ll do Anything for Pets. ❤️🐾 And the people who love them! Because we’re those people, too. Pets inspire and motivate us to bring our best selves to work each day. Our associates are devoted to ensuring that pets’ lives are happy and healthy. So, natura...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:30,731
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
RGIS

RGIS

300 Trinity Park, Birmingham, B37 7ES, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.rgis.com
786/1000Fair

Since 1958, we’ve been pushing the envelope for accurate and reliable inventories and quality retail merchandising services. Our trusted results allowed us to expand across the globe as well as leverage our expertise to service other industries. With nation-wide covera...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:12,249
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PetSmart

PetSmart

-
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
RGIS

RGIS

-
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 PetSmart in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RGIS in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PetSmart (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PetSmart cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - RGIS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RGIS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
PetSmart

PetSmart

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PET1765166324
RGIS

RGIS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1