Comparison Overview

Target Labels and Packaging

VS

Grace Printing & Mailing

Target Labels and Packaging

95 South River Bend Way, North Salt Lake, Utah, 84054, US
Last Update: 2025-12-12
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ppcflex.com

We offer full service printing for labels, flexible packaging and shrink sleeves. We have two pouch machine for stand-up pouches, purchased new and faster converting equipment, as well as wide web slitters for high speed slitting. We have recently added new lamination capabilities for high speed lamination. Our most recent purchase places us among the elite of flexible packaging with a new wide web printing press. This press offers some of the most recent technological advances in flexible packaging. Our goal is to offer superior products at competitive prices. Digital packaging is also a large part of our business. We can provide for your short runs and extremely long runs at competitive pricing and lead times.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 14
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Grace Printing & Mailing

3425 Cleveland St, Skokie, Illinois, 60076, US
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799
http://www.graceprinting.com

Grace Printing & Mailing offers: A Unique combination of design studio, commercial lithography / digital printing and mailing facility A staff of managers with a combined 300+ years of design / print / mail experience An innovative staff who has saved clients literally hundreds of thousand of dollars with cost-cutting ideas A traditional printer who creates new Eco-friendly production methods A Customer-driven philosophy that places a premium on rapid response and an industry leading return on your investment

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 33
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/target-labels-and-packaging.jpeg
Target Labels and Packaging
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grace-printing.jpeg
Grace Printing & Mailing
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Target Labels and Packaging
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Grace Printing & Mailing
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Target Labels and Packaging in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grace Printing & Mailing in 2025.

Incident History — Target Labels and Packaging (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Target Labels and Packaging cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Grace Printing & Mailing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grace Printing & Mailing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/target-labels-and-packaging.jpeg
Target Labels and Packaging
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grace-printing.jpeg
Grace Printing & Mailing
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Grace Printing & Mailing company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Target Labels and Packaging company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Grace Printing & Mailing company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Target Labels and Packaging company.

In the current year, Grace Printing & Mailing company and Target Labels and Packaging company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Grace Printing & Mailing company nor Target Labels and Packaging company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Grace Printing & Mailing company nor Target Labels and Packaging company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Grace Printing & Mailing company nor Target Labels and Packaging company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging company nor Grace Printing & Mailing company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging nor Grace Printing & Mailing holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging company nor Grace Printing & Mailing company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Grace Printing & Mailing company employs more people globally than Target Labels and Packaging company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging nor Grace Printing & Mailing holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging nor Grace Printing & Mailing holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging nor Grace Printing & Mailing holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging nor Grace Printing & Mailing holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging nor Grace Printing & Mailing holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Target Labels and Packaging nor Grace Printing & Mailing holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
References
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
References
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
References