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

Comparison Overview

Target OpticalTarget Optical
VS
AcostaAcosta
Target Optical

Target Optical

420 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10018, New York, NY, US, 10018

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
773/1000Fair

At Target Optical, we love the neighborhoods we belong to and that’s why we care for them. By listening and building relationships with one another, we help our guests get quality eye care products and services at a great value. We help people see more clearly and con...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:867
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Acosta

Acosta

6651 Gate Pkwy, Jacksonville, 32256, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.acosta.com
791/1000Fair

Acosta brings simplicity to retail sales. We act as a catalyst to boldly connect brands, retailers and consumers, fueling growth and building long-term value throughout North America and Europe. We are deeply embedded in every corner of the retail industry, strengtheni...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:13,177
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Target Optical

Target Optical

-
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
Acosta

Acosta

-
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 Target Optical in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Target Optical (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Target Optical cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Acosta 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...
Target Optical

Target Optical

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Acosta

Acosta

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86098
SUMMARY

ntop nDPI versions before 6.0 contain a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the ndpi_json_string_escape function that writes beyond caller-supplied buffer boundaries. Attackers can trigger the overflow by supplying crafted network packet data including TLS SNI, HTTP headers, or DNS names that reach the vulnerable function, causing heap corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
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:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86097
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a null pointer dereference vulnerability in param_set_default_file() and param_set_backup_file() functions that allows attackers to crash the autopilot process. Attackers can invoke 'param select' or 'param select-backup' commands with no path argument from any PX4 shell to trigger the crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86096
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in TemperatureCalibration::start() due to a race condition between task spawning and object deletion. Attackers can trigger the calibration process via shell commands to write to freed heap memory, corrupting unrelated objects or allocator metadata and destabilizing heap operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86095
SUMMARY

Unidata netcdf-c through 4.10.1 contains an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in NC4_HDF5_inq_attname() that copies HDF5 attribute names into a fixed 256-byte buffer without length validation. Attackers can craft HDF5 files with oversized attribute names to overflow the destination buffer, causing memory corruption and crashes when applications enumerate attribute names.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-48019
SUMMARY

Laravel is a web application framework. Prior to versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0, a CRLF injection vulnerability in Laravel's email validation, in combination with how Symfony Mailer and Symfony Mime handle certain character sequences, may allow an unauthenticated attacker to interfere with outbound email processing in applications that send mail to user-supplied addresses. This issue has been patched in versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2