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

Comparison Overview

Silks® HosierySilks® Hosiery
VS
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.
Silks® Hosiery

Silks® Hosiery

207 Weston Road, Toronto, Ontario, M6N 4Z3, CA

Last Update: 27/10/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.silkshosiery.com/
760/1000Fair

For over 60 years Silks, has been a leading women’s hosiery Brand within the Canadian marketplace. Our dynamic legwear collection offers top quality yarns and is designed with superior fit and comfort. The line offering includes an assortment of pantyhose, knee highs, l...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:25
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Piramal Agastya Corporate Park, Building 'A', 4th and 5th Floor, Unit No. 401, 403, 501, 502, L.B.S. Road, Kurla, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400070

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.abfrl.com/
763/1000Fair

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited (ABFRL), part of the Aditya Birla Group, is India’s leading fashion powerhouse, offering a distinguished portfolio of renowned brands and retail formats, catering to multiple high-growth segments. As of March 31, 2025, the Compan...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:14,033
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Silks® Hosiery

Silks® Hosiery

-
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
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

-
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 Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Silks® Hosiery in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Silks® Hosiery (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Silks® Hosiery cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. 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...
Silks® Hosiery

Silks® Hosiery

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9