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

Comparison Overview

AMOREPACIFICAMOREPACIFIC
VS
CotyCoty
AMOREPACIFIC

AMOREPACIFIC

AMOREPACIFIC HQ, Seoul, 04542, KR

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

Founded in 1945, Amorepacific Group is Korea's leading beauty company, operating over 30 beauty, personal care, and health care brands including Sulwhasoo, Laneige, Etude, and innisfree.

NAICS:32562
NAICS Definition:Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Employees:3,628
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Coty

Coty

Buitenveldertselaan 3-5, Amsterdam, 1082, NL

Last Update: 03/04/2026

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

Since 1904, Coty has fearlessly pioneered innovation across the beauty industry. We have a reputation for breaking new ground; a history of ‘firsts’ and ‘bests’ that has laid the foundation for the industry as we know it today. For over a century, our brands have been ...

NAICS:32562
NAICS Definition:Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Employees:12,568
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AMOREPACIFIC

AMOREPACIFIC

-
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
Coty

Coty

-
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 Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AMOREPACIFIC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coty in 2026.

Incidents

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

AMOREPACIFIC 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 - Coty (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coty 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...
AMOREPACIFIC

AMOREPACIFIC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Coty

Coty

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
COT228072925

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9