Comparison Overview

The Topps Company

VS

Mostafa Group of Industries

The Topps Company

1 Whitehall Street, New York, 10004, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

The Topps Company, Inc. is the iconic, preeminent leader in physical and digital collectibles. Acquired by Fanatics Collectibles in January 2022, Topps is the company's cornerstone licensed trading card brand. Founded in 1938, The Topps Company started in confections with "Topps Gum" (later introducing Bazooka Bubble Gum) and released its first trading card set in 1950. Today, the company produces trading cards and collectibles, custom cards, memorabilia, sticker album collections and more related to iconic and pop culture brands such as Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, Star Wars, Bundesliga, UEFA Champions League, World Wrestling Entertainment and Garbage Pail Kids. Fanatics Collectibles has also secured long-term, exclusive rights to design, manufacture and distribute trading cards for several additional sports properties, including NBA, NBPA and NFLPA, in the coming years. Topps’ Digital Apps division produces, develops and operates mobile applications that give you access to an exclusive digital card collection at your fingertips that are sold via the Apple and Google app stores under the brand names BUNT, KICK, NHL SKATE, Star Wars Card Trader, The Walking Dead Universe Collect, WWE SLAM, Marvel Collect! and Disney Collect! https://play.toppsapps.com/. Headquartered in New York City, Topps maintains offices in several countries including the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, India and Brazil.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 531
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Mostafa Group of Industries

Mostafa Centre, 1102/A, Agrabad C/A Chittagong, 4100, BD
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Today, MGI’s business diversification in the sectors like Edible Oil Products, Coconut Oil, Tank Terminal, Paper Products, Shrimp, Hatchery, Tea, Salt, Tea Garden, Rubber Plantation, Agro Products, Real Estate, Passenger Transportation, Shipping, Flat Steel, Ship Breaking, Long Steel, Artificial Leather, Rexine, Textile, RMG, Commercial Trading, Import and Export as well as Strategic investments in Banking, Insurance and Securities. The Group is also well renowned for his Corporate Social Responsibility in Education, Health and Socio Cultural Sectors.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 10,001
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-topps-company.jpeg
The Topps Company
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/mostafa-group-of-industries.jpeg
Mostafa Group of Industries
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 Topps Company
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mostafa Group of Industries
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Topps Company in 2026.

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mostafa Group of Industries in 2026.

Incident History — The Topps Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Topps Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mostafa Group of Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mostafa Group of Industries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-topps-company.jpeg
The Topps Company
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mostafa-group-of-industries.jpeg
Mostafa Group of Industries
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mostafa Group of Industries company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Topps Company company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

The Topps Company company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Mostafa Group of Industries company has not reported any.

In the current year, Mostafa Group of Industries company and The Topps Company company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mostafa Group of Industries company nor The Topps Company company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

The Topps Company company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Mostafa Group of Industries company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Mostafa Group of Industries company nor The Topps Company company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Topps Company company nor Mostafa Group of Industries company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Topps Company nor Mostafa Group of Industries holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

The Topps Company company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mostafa Group of Industries company.

Mostafa Group of Industries company employs more people globally than The Topps Company company, reflecting its scale as a Manufacturing.

Neither The Topps Company nor Mostafa Group of Industries holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Topps Company nor Mostafa Group of Industries holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Topps Company nor Mostafa Group of Industries holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Topps Company nor Mostafa Group of Industries holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Topps Company nor Mostafa Group of Industries holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Topps Company nor Mostafa Group of Industries holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N