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

Comparison Overview

Rodan + FieldsRodan + Fields
VS
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

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

Last Update: 04/04/2026

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
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

1000 Stanley Drive, New Britain, CT, US, 06053

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

For the builders and protectors, for the makers and explorers, for those shaping and reshaping our world through hard work and inspiration, Stanley Black & Decker provides the tools and innovative solutions you can trust to get the job done—and we have since 1843. You ...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:29,016
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
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
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Stanley Black & Decker, 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rodan + Fields in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

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

Incident History - Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. 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...
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8