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

Comparison Overview

Williams-Sonoma, Inc.Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
VS
Grupo PernambucanasGrupo Pernambucanas
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

3250 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, 94109, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
816/1000Good

Founded in 1956, Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is the premier specialty retailer of high-quality products for the home. Our family of brands includes Williams Sonoma, Pottery Barn, Pottery Barn Kids, PBteen, West Elm, Williams-Sonoma Home, Rejuvenation, and Mark and Graham. T...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:15,437
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Grupo Pernambucanas

Grupo Pernambucanas

Rua da Consolação 2411, Sao Paulo, BR

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
805/1000Good

Somos a companhia que veste a vida dos brasileiros. O Grupo Pernambucanas é a marca que leva estilo, calor e facilidade para os brasileiros desde que nasceu. Que abre as portas para um universo de possibilidades que vão muito além das araras. É a marca que tem o olh...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:14,429
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

-
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
Grupo Pernambucanas

Grupo Pernambucanas

-
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 Williams-Sonoma, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grupo Pernambucanas in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 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 - Grupo Pernambucanas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grupo Pernambucanas 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...
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Grupo Pernambucanas

Grupo Pernambucanas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9