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

Comparison Overview

USCUSC
VS
Levi Strauss & Co.Levi Strauss & Co.
USC

USC

150/154 Oxford Street, London, W1D 1ND, GB

Last Update: 02/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://bit.ly/3gujWX1
764/1000Fair

USC is a clothing retailer that sells branded clothing across the United Kingdom. The company was founded in 1989 in Edinburgh and has been owned by Sports Direct since 2011. Our mission is to surround ourselves with people who get it, and get us. We understand that th...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:273
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co.

1155 Battery St, San Francisco, US

Last Update: 07/08/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.levistrauss.com
749/1000Moderate

You’re an original. So are we. We’re a company of people who like to forge our own path. We invented the blue jean in 1873, and we reinvented khaki pants in 1986. We pioneered labor and environmental guidelines in manufacturing. And we work to build sustainability int...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:17,893
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
USC

USC

-
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
Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co.

-
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 Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for USC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

Levi Strauss & Co. has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

USC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Levi Strauss & Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Levi Strauss & Co. 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...
USC

USC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MARHARLEV1786113277
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEV007072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2