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

Comparison Overview

RiachueloRiachuelo
VS
JCPenneyJCPenney
Riachuelo

Riachuelo

Rua Lemos Monteiro, 120, Butantã, São Paulo, São Paulo 05501-050, BR

Last Update: 23/04/2026

View Profile
826/1000Good

A Riachuelo é a maior empresa de moda do Brasil! São 213 lojas distribuídas por todo o País e tem previsão de chegar a 300 lojas até o final de 2015. A Riachuelo faz parte do Grupo Guararapes, que é o maior grupo de confecção de roupas da América Latina com dois parqu...

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

JCPenney

6502 Legacy Drive, Plano, 75024, US

Last Update: 17/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.jcpenney.com
696/1000Weak

As we reinvent ourselves to fit the diversity of America, we are looking for motivated, talented people who can emerge as Warriors in our organization. JCPenney offers an inclusive environment and culture where you can find and define yourself - your style, your purpos...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:40,106
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Riachuelo

Riachuelo

-
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
JCPenney

JCPenney

-
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 Riachuelo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

JCPenney has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Riachuelo 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 - JCPenney (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JCPenney 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...
Riachuelo

Riachuelo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
JCPenney

JCPenney

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JCPAUTCAT1781735087

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56082
SUMMARY

Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the SECURITY DEFINER PostgREST RPC function public.record_build_time, which is granted to the anon role and callable with only the public Supabase publishable (sb_publishable_*) anon key. An unauthenticated attacker can insert rows into public.build_logs for arbitrary organizations and, because the function uses ON CONFLICT (build_id, org_id) DO UPDATE, can overwrite existing usage/billing records by reusing the same build_id for a target org. This enables cross-tenant tampering of billing build logs and financial-impact denial of service by inflating billable build time.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
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:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56081
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication logic flaw that lets an attacker register and control an account bound to a victim's email address before that email is verified. By enabling two-factor authentication on the pre-registered account, the attacker gains control over the account claimed under the victim's identity, allowing them to read and modify its state and enforce organization-level policies, while the legitimate user is denied access to the account tied to their own email.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56080
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a flaw in the Enforce Password Policy feature: after a Super Admin enables the policy and successfully changes their password to a compliant one, the backend does not update the password-compliance state. As a result, the backend continues to treat the account as non-compliant and repeatedly forces password-reset prompts, permanently locking the Super Admin out of organization access (organization lockout / denial of service) despite valid authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-56079
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in PostgREST endpoints that allows org-scoped read API keys to access other tenants' webhook secrets and delivery logs. Attackers can query the webhooks and webhook_deliveries endpoints to exfiltrate HMAC signing secrets and delivery payloads, enabling forged webhook events against victim organizations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56073
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in OTP verification that allows attackers to bypass email verification by modifying server responses. Attackers can intercept OTP verification requests and manipulate HTTP responses to falsely mark verification successful, enabling unauthorized 2FA enablement and account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9