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

Comparison Overview

Pottery BarnPottery Barn
VS
Fred MeyerFred Meyer
Pottery Barn

Pottery Barn

151 Union Street, San Francisco, CA, 94111, US

Last Update: 15/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.potterybarn.com
780/1000Fair

For over 70 years, Pottery Barn has represented exceptional quality and unparalleled value. America’s most meaningful, beautiful design source, we bring together good products, people and values. We believe that style evolves, but quality is timeless. Original designs...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:3,043
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Fred Meyer

Fred Meyer

N/A

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 850 and 899
http://www.fredmeyer.com
857/1000Very Good

The Kroger Co., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food retailer in the United States. The company operates three formats of supermarkets: combination food and drug stores (combo stores), multi department stores, and price impact warehouse stores or marketpla...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:11,233
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pottery Barn

Pottery Barn

-
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
Fred Meyer

Fred Meyer

-
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 Pottery Barn in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fred Meyer in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Pottery Barn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pottery Barn 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 - Fred Meyer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fred Meyer 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...
Pottery Barn

Pottery Barn

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Fred Meyer

Fred Meyer

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
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-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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: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
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8