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

Comparison Overview

Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and DataSainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data
VS
PUMA GroupPUMA Group
Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data

Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data

33 Holborn, London, EC1N 2HT, GB

Last Update: 25/03/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

Our tech team plays a vital role in supporting Sainsbury’s mission and strategy for the future. We power the UK’s third-busiest retail site, and our innovations allow our customers to shop and connect with us whenever they want to, reliably and safely, and help our coll...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:1,110
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PUMA Group

PUMA Group

PUMA Way 1, Herzogenaurach, DE, 91074

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
714/1000Moderate

PUMA is one of the world’s leading sports brands, designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories. For more than 75 years, PUMA has relentlessly pushed sport and culture forward by creating fast products for the world’s fastest athletes. P...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:21,972
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data

Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data

-
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
PUMA Group

PUMA Group

-
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 Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PUMA Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - PUMA Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PUMA Group 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...
Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data

Sainsbury's Digital, Tech and Data

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PUMA Group

PUMA Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
PUM231924123
🔒 Incident : Breach
PUM1910222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2