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

Comparison Overview

TargetTarget
VS
Lidl in GermanyLidl in Germany
Target

Target

1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, 55403, US

Last Update: 06/05/2026

View Profile
733/1000Moderate

Target is one of the world’s most recognized brands — and one of America’s leading retailers — known for bringing joy to everyday life. We create meaningful experiences for our guests by combining value, inspiration and innovation in ways no one else can. Beyond our sto...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:173,307
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2
Lidl in Germany

Lidl in Germany

Bonfelder Straße 2, Bad Wimpfen, Baden-Württemberg, DE, 74206

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://qr.lidl.com/aephaeJ6
808/1000Good

Anpacker. Durchstarter. Möglichmacher. Alle reden vom Kundenfokus, Customer first, dem Kunden als König. Wir finden, das ist zu kurz gedacht und würden es so formulieren: Der Mensch ist Dreh- und Angelpunkt unseres Erfolgs. Dazu gehört neben einer Kunden- auch die Mita...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:84,511
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Target

Target

-
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
Lidl in Germany

Lidl in Germany

-
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)

Target has 48.98% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lidl in Germany in 2026.

Incidents

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

Target cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Lidl in Germany (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lidl in Germany 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...
Target

Target

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAR1768244770
🔒 Incident : Breach
TARWEG1777381148
🔒 Incident : Breach
WEGTAR1778027645
Lidl in Germany

Lidl in Germany

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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