Comparison Overview

Target

VS

Sainsbury's

Target

1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN, US, 55403
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 650 and 699

Target is one of the world’s most recognized brands and one of America’s leading retailers. We make Target our guests’ preferred shopping destination by offering outstanding value, inspiration, innovation and an exceptional guest experience that no other retailer can deliver. Target is committed to responsible corporate citizenship, ethical business practices, environmental stewardship and generous community support. Since 1946, we have given 5 percent of our profits back to our communities. Our goal is to work as one team to fulfill our unique brand promise to our guests, wherever and whenever they choose to shop. For more information, visit corporate.target.com. Beware of Hiring Scams: Target will never ask you to submit personal information via a text message for a position. Target will only ask you to apply for positions through corporate.target.com/careers, or Workday, our applicant tracking system.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 165,627
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
12
Attack type number
4

Sainsbury's

33 Holborn, London, GB, EC1N 2HT
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Over 150 years old and still going strong, we’re the UK’s second-biggest retailer. Every day, the nation shops with us because they know they’ll get affordable, good food and excellent service. We focus on great value and convenient shopping across our family of brands, from Argos, Nectar and Habitat to Sainsbury’s Bank, Smart Charge and Tu. What’s next for Sainsbury’s? We've put food back at the heart of our business and we’re taking Sainsbury’s to the next level. We’re investing in technology and people and we’re thinking bigger about how we attract and connect with our customers, while doing everything we can to create a more resilient UK food system.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 68,167
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/target.jpeg
Target
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/sainsburys.jpeg
Sainsbury's
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
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sainsbury's
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Target in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sainsbury's in 2025.

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

Target cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Sainsbury's (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sainsbury's cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/target.jpeg
Target
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2013
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Spear Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Card Swiping at Terminals
Motivation: Credit Card Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sainsburys.jpeg
Sainsbury's
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party Vendor Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 03/2010
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unencrypted Emails
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Sainsbury's company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Target company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Target company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Sainsbury's company.

In the current year, Sainsbury's company and Target company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Target company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Sainsbury's company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Sainsbury's company and Target company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Target company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Sainsbury's company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Target company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Sainsbury's company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Target nor Sainsbury's holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Sainsbury's company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Target company.

Target company employs more people globally than Sainsbury's company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither Target nor Sainsbury's holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Target nor Sainsbury's holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Target nor Sainsbury's holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Target nor Sainsbury's holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Target nor Sainsbury's holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Target nor Sainsbury's holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H