Comparison Overview

Print Depot

VS

Image Mill, Inc.

Print Depot

City Link Business Park,, Dublin 12., undefined, undefined, IE
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

Print Depot has been a trusted print supplier to a host of small, medium and large Irish businesses since the company was established in 1990. Over the intervening years, we have broadened our product offering from conventional printing to being a full-service communications partner to our clients, including point of sale materials and marketing collateral, both general and specialised. We can quite literally handle it all when it comes to conceiving, designing and producing high-impact print material and below-the-line marketing communications. As your communications partner, we are totally focused on delivering the results that you expect. Our involvement doesn’t stop at production – we give you the benefit of our experience and expertise from the very outset, making sure that the end result fulfills and exceeds your expectations. With a team of friendly professionals on hand at all times, plus easy access to our senior management staff, we promise you that doing business with us is a pleasure every time.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Image Mill, Inc.

undefined, Monroe, WA, 98272, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

Since 1996 Image Mill Inc. has been the pioneer in providing superior quality digital printing services to the retail, corporate, tradeshow and event industries. Our services include prototyping, on-site consultation, design assistance, program & budget management, fulfillment, shipping and installation. Our clients in the Northwest and across the U.S. rely on our expertise and technology to manage and deliver consistent brand solutions for each and every project.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 17
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/print-depot.jpeg
Print Depot
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/image-mill-inc..jpeg
Image Mill, Inc.
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
Print Depot
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Image Mill, Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Print Depot in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Image Mill, Inc. in 2025.

Incident History — Print Depot (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Print Depot cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Image Mill, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Image Mill, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/print-depot.jpeg
Print Depot
Incidents
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/image-mill-inc..jpeg
Image Mill, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Print Depot company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Image Mill, Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Image Mill, Inc. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Print Depot company.

In the current year, Image Mill, Inc. company and Print Depot company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Image Mill, Inc. company nor Print Depot company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Image Mill, Inc. company nor Print Depot company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Image Mill, Inc. company nor Print Depot company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Print Depot company nor Image Mill, Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Print Depot nor Image Mill, Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Print Depot company nor Image Mill, Inc. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Print Depot company employs more people globally than Image Mill, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Print Depot nor Image Mill, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Print Depot nor Image Mill, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Print Depot nor Image Mill, Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Print Depot nor Image Mill, Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Print Depot nor Image Mill, Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Print Depot nor Image Mill, Inc. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L