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

Comparison Overview

VitageneVitagene
VS
Forever Living Products (UK) LtdForever Living Products (UK) Ltd
Vitagene

Vitagene

404 Bryant St, None, San Francisco, California, US, 94107

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://vitagene.com/
746/1000Moderate

Each year, people spend billions of dollars on over-the-counter products, new fad diets, and the latest fitness crazes believing that these choices will improve their health and help them reach their goals. But this behavior neglects one critical factor: we're all diff...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

GB

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 850 and 899
http://foreverliving.com/
856/1000Very Good

Forever Living Products and its affiliates are the largest growers, manufacturer and distributors of Aloe Vera products. The key to Forever Living's success is commitment to quality and purity. In order to ensure the highest quality, Forever Living cultivates aloe vera ...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:31,285
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Vitagene

Vitagene

-
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
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

-
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 Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vitagene in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

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

Vitagene cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Vitagene

Vitagene

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
VIT16491423
Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Forever Living Products (UK) Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8