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

Comparison Overview

PUMA GroupPUMA Group
VS
Harris TeeterHarris Teeter
PUMA Group

PUMA Group

PUMA Way 1, Herzogenaurach, DE, 91074

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
721/1000Moderate

PUMA is one of the world’s leading sports brands, designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories. For more than 75 years, PUMA has relentlessly pushed sport and culture forward by creating fast products for the world’s fastest athletes. P...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:21,972
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

701 Crestdale Drive, Matthews, 28105, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.harristeeter.com
788/1000Fair

Founded in 1960 in North Carolina, Harris Teeter has been enriching the lives of our customers and our communities for decades. Today, Harris Teeter employs 36,000 valued associates and operates more than 250 stores and 70 fuel centers in seven states and the District o...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:14,778
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PUMA Group

PUMA Group

-
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
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

-
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 PUMA Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Harris Teeter in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PUMA Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PUMA Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Harris Teeter (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Harris Teeter 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...
PUMA Group

PUMA Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
PUM231924123
🔒 Incident : Breach
PUM1910222
Harris Teeter

Harris Teeter

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8