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

Comparison Overview

Acqua di ParmaAcqua di Parma
VS
PandoraPandora
Acqua di Parma

Acqua di Parma

Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 99, Milano, MI, 20141, IT

Last Update: 16/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.acquadiparma.com
766/1000Fair

Acqua di Parma was created in 1916 by the baron Carlo Magnani from Parma as his own personal Colonia. True sophistication never goes unnoticed, and amongst the in the know inner circle, the personal scent grew into a brand, sold mostly through Italian tailors as the fin...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:361
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Pandora

Pandora

Havneholmen 17-19, Copenhagen, 1561, DK

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.pandoragroup.com
633/1000Poor

Pandora is the world’s largest jewellery brand. The company designs, manufactures and markets hand-finished jewellery made from high-quality materials at affordable prices Pandora jewellery is sold in more than 100 countries through more than 6,500 points of sale, inclu...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:21,855
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Acqua di Parma

Acqua di Parma

-
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
Pandora

Pandora

-
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 Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acqua di Parma in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pandora in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Acqua di Parma (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Acqua di Parma cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Pandora 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...
Acqua di Parma

Acqua di Parma

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Pandora

Pandora

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI1122911112425
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAN401080725
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI0292402112125

FAQ

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