Comparison Overview

Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing

VS

MEI Labels

Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing

4521 Troy Hwy, Montgomery, Alabama, 36116, US
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.wellsprinting.com/

For more than half a century, Wells has both met and exceeded the needs of our customers by offering the highest levels of quality in the industry at competitive prices. This outstanding performance has always been achieved through our commitment to excellence. Our reputation is based on a history of honesty, integrity and hard work. Wells has always been a local company devoted to the Montgomery area and its values. From the humblest of beginnings, we have grown to become an industry leader, but the values learned beginning in a cow stall still shine through in our work.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 37
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

MEI Labels

19014 E. Admiral Place, Catoosa, 74015, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.meilabels.com

Founded in 1996, MEI is a leading provider of pressure sensitive label products, shrink sleeves, film pouches, tags and other products including silk screening and embroidery. Located in Catoosa (Tulsa), Oklahoma, MEI has grown significantly since its inception, becoming a national label printing platform, serving a diverse set of customers across the United States. Fortune 500 companies to small family-run businesses depend on MEI products every day. Acquired by new ownership in 2012, led by experienced label industry executives, MEI is poised for growth in the future fueled by new investment in equipment and new product development. In June 2013, MEI Label Holdings acquired TVC Label based in Lewisville, Texas which broadens the scope of products that are offered by the company. The joining of MEI Labels and TVC Label is a powerful combination of two strong companies which will increase the value that the companies bring to their customers.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 10
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/wells-printing-co.jpeg
Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing
—
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/mei-labels.jpeg
MEI Labels
—
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
Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MEI Labels
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MEI Labels in 2025.

Incident History — Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — MEI Labels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MEI Labels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wells-printing-co.jpeg
Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mei-labels.jpeg
MEI Labels
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to MEI Labels company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, MEI Labels company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company.

In the current year, MEI Labels company and Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither MEI Labels company nor Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither MEI Labels company nor Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither MEI Labels company nor Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company nor MEI Labels company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing nor MEI Labels holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company nor MEI Labels company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing company employs more people globally than MEI Labels company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing nor MEI Labels holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing nor MEI Labels holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing nor MEI Labels holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing nor MEI Labels holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing nor MEI Labels holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Wells Printing, Promotional & Mailing nor MEI Labels holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/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
References
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
References
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
References