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

Comparison Overview

良品計画(MUJI)良品計画(MUJI)
VS
ConadConad
良品計画(MUJI)

良品計画(MUJI)

2-5-1 Koraku,, Bunkyo-ku, 112-0004, JP

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

1980年12月、西友ストアー(現:合同会社西友)のプライベートブランドとして40品目でデビューした「無印良品」は、現在では約7,500品目、店舗は日本を含む29の国・地域へと広がりました。 1989年に設立した良品計画は、「無印良品」の企画開発から、商品調達、流通・販売までを行う製造小売業です。他にも「Café&Meal MUJI」「IDÉE」の展開、キャンプ場の運営などを行っています。 「人と自然とモノの望ましい関係と心豊かな人間社会」を考えた商品、サービス、店舗、活動を通じて「感じ良い暮らしと社会」の実現に貢献することを企業理...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:539
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Conad

Conad

Bologna, 40100, IT

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.conad.it
791/1000Fair

PERSONE OLTRE LE COSE. Conad è una storia fatta di imprenditori, commercianti, clienti e comunità. Un lungo viaggio che inizia nella metà degli anni ’60: nel 1962 nasce a Bologna il Consorzio Nazionale Dettaglianti, una società cooperativa a responsabilità limitata cost...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:12,798
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
良品計画(MUJI)

良品計画(MUJI)

-
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
Conad

Conad

-
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 良品計画(MUJI) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Conad in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 良品計画(MUJI) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

良品計画(MUJI) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Conad 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...
良品計画(MUJI)

良品計画(MUJI)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MUJ3592035102125
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
RYO0792107102025
Conad

Conad

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63175
SUMMARY

PlaywrightCapture stored capture-specific configuration and runtime data as mutable class-level variables rather than instance-level variables. Consequently, multiple Capture objects running within the same Python process could share state, including HTTP headers, cookies, browser storage, HTTP credentials, proxy configuration, user-agent settings, geolocation information, and captured request data. In a multi-user or concurrent deployment, information supplied during one capture could therefore persist and be reused by a subsequent or parallel capture. This could result in the disclosure of authentication cookies, credentials, browser storage, or captured request data belonging to another user. It could also cause requests to be performed with another capture's authentication context, headers, or proxy configuration, potentially enabling unauthorized access to remote resources or interference with other capture operations. The vulnerability is resolved by initializing all capture-specific settings and request data as instance variables in the Capture constructor, ensuring that state is isolated between capture operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
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:L/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-2026-62314
SUMMARY

Anubis is a Web AI Firewall Utility that challenges users' connections in order to protect upstream resources from scraper bots. From 1.22.0 until 1.26.0-pre1, lib/policy/checker.go PathChecker.Check() trusted the client-controlled X-Original-URI header before matching r.URL.Path, allowing an HTTP client to match default data/common/keep-internet-working.yaml ALLOW rules such as ^/\.well-known/.*$ and bypass the Anubis challenge. This issue is fixed in version 1.26.0-pre1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55652
SUMMARY

Wekan is open source kanban built with Meteor. Prior to 9.46, header-login with HEADER_LOGIN_TRUSTED_IPS uses getRequestIp() in server/lib/headerLoginAuth.js to trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For header before the real socket address, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to send HEADER_LOGIN_ID for any username and receive a meteor_login_token session, including for admin. This issue is fixed in version 9.46.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55576
SUMMARY

MaaAssistantArknights is a one-click tool for daily Arknights tasks. In the current dev-v2 workflow, .github/workflows/release-preparation.yml inlined attacker-controlled github.event.pull_request.title into a run: shell command during the pull_request opened, reopened, and ready_for_review events, so a non-draft fork PR whose title starts with Release v could execute shell commands on the ubuntu-latest runner during the generate-changelog job. This vulnerability is fixed by commit cafc3946059e6337d2089d4fec8b6885ba17c332.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55445
SUMMARY

Qinglong is a timed task management platform supporting Python3, JavaScript, Shell, and Typescript. Prior to 2.20.1, the init guard middleware in back/loaders/express.ts checks /api/user/init but not /open/user/init, while rewrite('/open/*', '/api/$1') rewrites the whitelisted /open/* path after JWT authentication and the guard have passed; an unauthenticated attacker can send PUT /open/user/init to reset administrator credentials on an initialized instance. This issue is fixed in 2.20.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA