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

Comparison Overview

Starbucks ChinaStarbucks China
VS
Bath & Body WorksBath & Body Works
Starbucks China

Starbucks China

徐汇区桂箐路65号, 上海市, 上海市, CN, 200233

Last Update: 22/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.starbucks.com.cn
780/1000Fair

星巴克咖啡公司自1999年进入中国以来,秉承“激发并孕育人文精神——每人、每杯、每个社区”的公司使命,我们始终致力于在中国成为一家与众不同的公司:在传承经典咖啡文化的同时,关爱我们的伙伴,为顾客提供超越期望的星巴克体验,并为所在社区的繁荣做出自己的贡献。目前星巴克已经在中国大陆130多个城市开设了3,000多家门店,拥有40,000名身穿绿围裙的星巴克伙伴。 我们热爱我们的咖啡。星巴克始终致力于通过道德采购,烘焙并提供高品质的阿拉比卡咖啡豆。我们还在中国云南普洱建立了星巴克中国咖啡种植者支持中心,旨在整合...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:2,455
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Bath & Body Works

Bath & Body Works

Columbus, Ohio, US, 43068

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

We were founded on a simple idea: to make the world a brighter, happier place through the power of fragrance. As we've grown, so has our purpose and today, we help the world live more fully through the power of fragrance. We’re a team that cares about our customers and...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:33,374
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Starbucks China

Starbucks China

-
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
Bath & Body Works

Bath & Body Works

-
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 Starbucks China in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bath & Body Works in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Starbucks China (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Starbucks China cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Bath & Body Works (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bath & Body Works 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...
Starbucks China

Starbucks China

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Bath & Body Works

Bath & Body Works

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BAT545072925

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59705
SUMMARY

mem0's openmemory/api component contains an unauthenticated access vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read, write, and delete arbitrary user memories by accessing API routers registered without authentication middleware. Attackers can supply arbitrary user_id parameters or directly access memory retrieval endpoints to expose private memory content, or invoke pause endpoints with global_pause=true to cause denial-of-service across all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
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
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:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59704
SUMMARY

Cap's GET /api/video/ai endpoint fails to validate user ownership or membership before returning private video AI metadata including titles, summaries, and chapters. Authenticated attackers can supply arbitrary video IDs to read sensitive AI-generated content and trigger unauthorized AI generation that consumes the video owner's credits without consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55078
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Starting in version 2.17.0 and prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 adds a metadata preflight check that sums projected entry sizes and a streaming writer that enforces the aggregate limit during decompression. As a workaround, restrict file-upload permissions to trusted users or place a reverse proxy with request-body size limits in front of `coderd`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
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-2026-55077
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, the `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. As a workaround, restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-55076
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2