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

Comparison Overview

Robertson Inc.Robertson Inc.
VS
Rodan + FieldsRodan + Fields
Robertson Inc.

Robertson Inc.

1185 Corporate Drive, Unit 1, Burlington, ON, L7L 5V5, CA

Last Update: 21/12/2025

View Profile
758/1000Fair

Robertson Inc., is a global supplier of standard and specialty fasteners with operating locations throughout the world. Through our modern manufacturing technology, ongoing product development programs, highly skilled and dedicated people and enduring commitment to exce...

NAICS:339
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:28
Subsidiaries:74
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

60 Spear Street, San Francisco, CA, US, 94105

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
782/1000Fair

We are Rodan + Fields, founded by Stanford-trained dermatologists with a mission to revolutionize skincare for women everywhere. Our products are dermatologist-developed and inspired by Women-Backed Science™, delivering real, visible results. We understand what works f...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:18,226
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Robertson Inc.

Robertson Inc.

-
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
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Robertson Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rodan + Fields in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Robertson Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Robertson Inc. 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 - Rodan + Fields (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rodan + Fields 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...
Robertson Inc.

Robertson Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8