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

Comparison Overview

Wells | Ótica e AudiologiaWells | Ótica e Audiologia
VS
H&M GroupH&M Group
Wells | Ótica e Audiologia

Wells | Ótica e Audiologia

None, None, Lisboa, None, PT, None

Last Update: 03/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://wells.pt/otica.html
768/1000Fair

A Wells é a marca de referência de saúde, beleza, bem-estar e ótica de todas as famílias portuguesas. Com mais de 270 lojas em todo o país, na Wells encontra os melhores preços e promoções e o serviço especializado de uma equipa pronta para o receber. Porque a saúde oc...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:52
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
H&M Group

H&M Group

Årstaängsvägen 13, Stockholm, Stockholm, SE, 117 75

Last Update: 14/10/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://hmgroup.com/
662/1000Weak

Founded in 1947, H&M Group is a global design company with ~4,702 stores in 76 markets and 56 online markets. At H&M Group, we believe in making great design available to everyone. It’s essential in everything we do. Our family of brands and business ventures offer cust...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:104,076
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Wells | Ótica e Audiologia

Wells | Ótica e Audiologia

-
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
H&M Group

H&M 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 Wells | Ótica e Audiologia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

H&M Group has 292.16% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Wells | Ótica e Audiologia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Wells | Ótica e Audiologia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - H&M Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

H&M Group 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...
Wells | Ótica e Audiologia

Wells | Ótica e Audiologia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
H&M Group

H&M Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HMG1791815982
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TFGTHEHMGASOWHI1792002776
🔒 Incident : Breach
HMGGOG1791981977

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8