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

Comparison Overview

資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社
VS
eClerxeClerx
資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社

資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社

銀座7-5-5, 中央区, JP

Last Update: 25/02/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

資生堂グループのIT・DXを牽引する組織、資生堂インタラクティブビューティーです。 変化する環境に対応し、デジタルトランスフォーメーション(DX)を加速させ、資生堂ジャパンの事業モデルを革新していくことを目的に、2021年に誕生。 「資生堂と皆さま」、「リアルとデジタル」、「お客さま同士」といったさまざまな繋がりや関係性を、デジタル・テクノロジー×「ビューティー」の持つ力で革新していきます。

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:98
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
eClerx

eClerx

29 Bank Street, Fort, 1st Floor, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400 023

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.eclerx.com
756/1000Fair

eClerx is a productized services company, bringing together people, technology and domain expertise to amplify business results. Our mission is to set the benchmark for client service and success in our industry. Our vision is to be the innovation partner of choice for ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:19,162
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社

資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社

-
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
eClerx

eClerx

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for eClerx in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

eClerx 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...
資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社

資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
eClerx

eClerx

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 company and eClerx company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 and eClerx, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 and eClerx, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 or eClerx ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 or eClerx ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 and eClerx, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between 資生堂インタラクティブビューティー株式会社 and eClerx, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8