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

Comparison Overview

Watsons MalaysiaWatsons Malaysia
VS
TFG (The Foschini Group)TFG (The Foschini Group)
Watsons Malaysia

Watsons Malaysia

Watson's Personal Care Stores Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, 55188, MY

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.watsons.com.my
778/1000Fair

Watsons Malaysia is part of AS Watson Group, the world’s largest international health and beauty retailer operating over 16,800 stores under 12 retail brands in 30 markets, with over 130,000 employees worldwide. For the fiscal year 2023, AS Watson Group recorded revenu...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:2,153
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

340 Voortrekker Road, Cape Town, 7500, ZA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tfgcareers.co.za
773/1000Fair

TFG holds a diversified portfolio of speciality retail assets across various product categories and consumer segments. The Group has a portfolio of 35 leading retail brands, with over 4600 outlets in 23 countries on five continents, offering customers a variety of speci...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:27,962
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Watsons Malaysia

Watsons Malaysia

-
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
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Watsons Malaysia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TFG (The Foschini Group) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Watsons Malaysia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Watsons Malaysia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - TFG (The Foschini Group) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TFG (The Foschini Group) 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...
Watsons Malaysia

Watsons Malaysia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TFG (The Foschini Group)

TFG (The Foschini Group)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2