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
ZARAZARA
Target

Target

1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, 55403, US

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
654/1000Weak

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 de...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:184,387
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2
ZARA

ZARA

Arteixo, A Coruña, ES, 15143

Last Update: 31/05/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.zara.com/es/en/
636/1000Poor

Zara is a forward-thinking force in fashion; embodying what is possible when responsibility and aspiration are accessible to all. By bringing more thoughtful style to the world, we aim to provide everyone, no matter where they are, with the inspiringly beautiful, always...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:43,877
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

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
ZARA

ZARA

-
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 9.29% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

ZARA has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - ZARA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ZARA 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

Target

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TAR1787336713
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAR1768244770
🔒 Incident : Breach
THEMOTIDSTARJAC1788457185
ZARA

ZARA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ZAR1780187075
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
ZAR1778228840

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8