Comparison Overview

RLX Corporation

VS

Computacenter

RLX Corporation

None, None, None, None, US, 60193
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

RLX Corporation is an IT deployment & Logistics company that provides various upgrades and installations of different kinds of hardware. Some of this hardware would include computers, scanners, printers, monitors and network components. RLX works closely with the IT Staff of its customers in order to streamline processes and procedures to successfully deploy the hardware of any given project. RLX Corporation is proud to offer a very unique combination of services, consultation and support. Customers can now save time and money by working with one company for many of their necessary business needs and achieve greater productivity through the use of cutting edge technology. We will work with our customers to provide the best solution utilizing the products and services and people that best fit the application.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Computacenter

Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, GB, AL10 9TW
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Computacenter is a leading independent technology and services provider, trusted by large corporate and public sector organisations. We are a responsible business that believes in winning together for our people and our planet. We help our customers to Source, Transform and Manage their technology infrastructure to deliver digital transformation, enabling people and their business. Computacenter plc is a public company quoted on the London Stock Exchange (CCC.L) and a member of the FTSE 250. Computacenter employs over 20,000 people worldwide.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 16,491
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
RLX Corporation
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/computacenter.jpeg
Computacenter
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
RLX Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Computacenter
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RLX Corporation in 2025.

Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Computacenter in 2025.

Incident History — RLX Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RLX Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Computacenter (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Computacenter cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
RLX Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/computacenter.jpeg
Computacenter
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Mailbox Compromise
Blog: Blog

FAQ

RLX Corporation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Computacenter company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Computacenter company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas RLX Corporation company has not reported any.

In the current year, Computacenter company and RLX Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Computacenter company nor RLX Corporation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Computacenter company nor RLX Corporation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Computacenter company nor RLX Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither RLX Corporation company nor Computacenter company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RLX Corporation nor Computacenter holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither RLX Corporation company nor Computacenter company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Computacenter company employs more people globally than RLX Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Information Technology & Services.

Neither RLX Corporation nor Computacenter holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RLX Corporation nor Computacenter holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RLX Corporation nor Computacenter holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RLX Corporation nor Computacenter holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RLX Corporation nor Computacenter holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RLX Corporation nor Computacenter holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H