Comparison Overview

The Bradford Exchange

VS

GiftYa

The Bradford Exchange

Niles, us
Last Update: 2025-12-27

We are a world leader in direct marketing and provider of limited-edition gifts, collectibles, home décor, and jewelry. Founded in 1973, we have an unyielding commitment to product quality and exceptional customer service which has helped us become one of the premier direct marketing companies in today’s international economy. Our company’s vision is to bring joy and happiness to customers by providing them with excellent quality and highly valued products and services. We are located in a Niles, IL

NAICS: 4541
NAICS Definition: Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses
Employees: 283
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

GiftYa

495 Mansfield Ave, Pittsburgh, PA - Pennsylvania, 15205, US
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 750 and 799

Every day, consumers are looking for ways to make their lives easier. In fact, we now live in a world where we expect to find an easier way to do things. Gift cards have not evolved in over 24 years. In fact, the company who invented gift cards no longer exists. GiftYa is a unique gift to evolve the gift card. Easy, personalized and meaningful… a GiftYa is sent within seconds, can’t be lost and doesn’t lose value! Gift cards are cumbersome, easily lost and stolen, and cannot be personalized. Has your gift card evolved? Join the #GiftYa movement.

NAICS: 454
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 6
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/the-bradford-exchange.jpeg
The Bradford Exchange
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/giftya.jpeg
GiftYa
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
The Bradford Exchange
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
GiftYa
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Online and Mail Order Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Bradford Exchange in 2025.

Incidents vs Online and Mail Order Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GiftYa in 2025.

Incident History — The Bradford Exchange (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Bradford Exchange cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

GiftYa cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-bradford-exchange.jpeg
The Bradford Exchange
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/giftya.jpeg
GiftYa
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Bradford Exchange company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to GiftYa company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, GiftYa company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Bradford Exchange company.

In the current year, GiftYa company and The Bradford Exchange company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither GiftYa company nor The Bradford Exchange company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither GiftYa company nor The Bradford Exchange company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither GiftYa company nor The Bradford Exchange company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Bradford Exchange company nor GiftYa company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Bradford Exchange nor GiftYa holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

The Bradford Exchange company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to GiftYa company.

The Bradford Exchange company employs more people globally than GiftYa company, reflecting its scale as a Online and Mail Order Retail.

Neither The Bradford Exchange nor GiftYa holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Bradford Exchange nor GiftYa holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Bradford Exchange nor GiftYa holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Bradford Exchange nor GiftYa holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Bradford Exchange nor GiftYa holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Bradford Exchange nor GiftYa holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper Input Validation vulnerability in qs (parse modules) allows HTTP DoS.This issue affects qs: < 6.14.1. SummaryThe arrayLimit option in qs does not enforce limits for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2), allowing attackers to cause denial-of-service via memory exhaustion. Applications using arrayLimit for DoS protection are vulnerable. DetailsThe arrayLimit option only checks limits for indexed notation (a[0]=1&a[1]=2) but completely bypasses it for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2). Vulnerable code (lib/parse.js:159-162): if (root === '[]' && options.parseArrays) { obj = utils.combine([], leaf); // No arrayLimit check } Working code (lib/parse.js:175): else if (index <= options.arrayLimit) { // Limit checked here obj = []; obj[index] = leaf; } The bracket notation handler at line 159 uses utils.combine([], leaf) without validating against options.arrayLimit, while indexed notation at line 175 checks index <= options.arrayLimit before creating arrays. PoCTest 1 - Basic bypass: npm install qs const qs = require('qs'); const result = qs.parse('a[]=1&a[]=2&a[]=3&a[]=4&a[]=5&a[]=6', { arrayLimit: 5 }); console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 6 (should be max 5) Test 2 - DoS demonstration: const qs = require('qs'); const attack = 'a[]=' + Array(10000).fill('x').join('&a[]='); const result = qs.parse(attack, { arrayLimit: 100 }); console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 10000 (should be max 100) Configuration: * arrayLimit: 5 (test 1) or arrayLimit: 100 (test 2) * Use bracket notation: a[]=value (not indexed a[0]=value) ImpactDenial of Service via memory exhaustion. Affects applications using qs.parse() with user-controlled input and arrayLimit for protection. Attack scenario: * Attacker sends HTTP request: GET /api/search?filters[]=x&filters[]=x&...&filters[]=x (100,000+ times) * Application parses with qs.parse(query, { arrayLimit: 100 }) * qs ignores limit, parses all 100,000 elements into array * Server memory exhausted → application crashes or becomes unresponsive * Service unavailable for all users Real-world impact: * Single malicious request can crash server * No authentication required * Easy to automate and scale * Affects any endpoint parsing query strings with bracket notation

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
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

A weakness has been identified in code-projects Refugee Food Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /home/editfood.php. This manipulation of the argument a/b/c/d causes sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

A security flaw has been discovered in code-projects Refugee Food Management System 1.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /home/editrefugee.php. The manipulation of the argument rfid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel vulnerability in Mobile Builder Mobile builder allows Authentication Abuse.This issue affects Mobile builder: from n/a through 1.4.2.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Hiroaki Miyashita Custom Field Template allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Custom Field Template: from n/a through 2.7.5.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L