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

Comparison Overview

BaccaratBaccarat
VS
GucciGucci
Baccarat

Baccarat

N/A

Last Update: 17/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.baccarat.com
751/1000Fair

Alchemist of joy, Baccarat is the fruit of a group of daring artisans who have transformed the four elements of nature – earth, air, fire and water – into crystal of unparalleled purity. By crafting true masterpieces, Baccarat has never ceased to astonish the world. Eac...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:774
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Gucci

Gucci

Via Don Lorenzo Perosi, 6, Casellina di Scandicci, 50018, IT

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://careers.gucci.com/
818/1000Good

Founded in Florence, Italy in 1921, Gucci is one of the world’s leading luxury brands. Following the House’s centenary, Gucci forges ahead continuing to redefine fashion and luxury while celebrating creativity, Italian craftsmanship, and innovation. Gucci is part of th...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:19,535
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Baccarat

Baccarat

-
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
Gucci

Gucci

-
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 Baccarat in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Gucci in 2026.

Incidents

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

Baccarat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Gucci 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...
Baccarat

Baccarat

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BAC1632211023
Gucci

Gucci

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-18556
SUMMARY

Authentication bypass using an alternate path or channel vulnerability in N-able N-central allows Authentication Bypass. This issue affects N-central: through 2026.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55735
SUMMARY

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature in ueberauth guardian allows an unauthenticated attacker to revoke a victim's session with a forged token. Guardian.revoke/3 in lib/guardian.ex decodes the supplied token with peek/1, which performs no signature verification (it only base64-decodes the JWT header and payload). The resulting unverified claims are forwarded directly to the configured token module's revoke callback and the implementation's on_revoke callback, a state-mutating sink. The sibling operations refresh/2 and exchange/4 both call decode_and_verify first, so the signature is checked before anything acts on the claims; revoke/3 is the only state-mutating path that acts on claims without verifying the signature. An attacker who knows or guesses a victim's identifying claim values (jti, sub) can forge a JWT carrying those claims, sign it with an arbitrary key, and submit it to any endpoint that funnels a caller-supplied token into Guardian.revoke/3 (the standard logout / session-revocation pattern). When the token module mutates state keyed by the claims (whitelist deletion or blacklist insertion, for example a GuardianDb-style store), the victim's legitimate session is evicted. This is an unauthenticated session-revocation denial of service; the attacker never needs the signing secret. This issue affects guardian: from 1.0.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55734
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in ueberauth guardian (Guardian.Permissions module) allows a denial of service via BEAM atom-table exhaustion. This vulnerability is associated with program file lib/guardian/permissions.ex and program routines 'Elixir.Guardian.Permissions':encode_permissions!/1, 'Elixir.Guardian.Permissions':encode_permissions_into_claims!/2, 'Elixir.Guardian.Permissions':do_encode_permissions!/2. The Guardian.Permissions mixin installs a public encode_permissions!/1 function on every module that does use Guardian.Permissions. For each key of the supplied map, encode_permissions!/1 calls String.to_atom(to_string(k)) before any validation runs. The integer-value clause of do_encode_permissions!/2 then short-circuits straight to encoding without validating the key against the configured permission set, so a key with an integer value is interned as a fresh atom with no exception raised. Atoms are never garbage collected and the BEAM atom table is a fixed-size resource (default roughly 1,048,576 entries), so each unique attacker-chosen key permanently consumes one slot. An attacker who can influence a permission map that reaches encode_permissions!/1 (for example a permissions map read from a request body and passed into token issuance via encode_permissions_into_claims!/2) can mint an unbounded number of atoms and exhaust the atom table, crashing the entire BEAM node and every service running on it. The sibling decode_permissions/1 is not affected because it skips keys absent from the configured permission set. This issue affects guardian: from 2.0.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55733
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in ueberauth guardian allows denial of service via unbounded atom creation from attacker-controlled binary input. Guardian.Permissions.AtomEncoding encodes permission scopes by passing arbitrary binaries to String.to_atom/1. When encode/3 in lib/guardian/permissions/atom_encoding.ex is called with a list, each binary entry is handled by the encode_value/3 binary clause, which calls String.to_atom(value) with no allow-list check. The perm_set argument (the application's small, finite set of legitimate permission names) is discarded, so any external string flows straight into atom creation. This encoder is selected with use Guardian.Permissions, encoding: Guardian.Permissions.AtomEncoding and reached through the imported encode/3 entry point. String.to_atom/1 creates a brand-new atom for every previously unseen binary, atoms are never garbage collected, and the BEAM atom table is fixed at roughly 1,048,576 entries by default. An application that funnels attacker-influenced permission scopes (from a request body, a JWT claim, or other external input) into encode/3 therefore mints one permanent atom per distinct value. A modest stream of varied, unauthenticated input permanently consumes the atom table and crashes the BEAM node with system_limit, taking down every application running on it. The default encoder is Guardian.Permissions.BitwiseEncoding, which is not affected. This issue affects guardian: from 2.0.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-54894
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in ueberauth guardian allows denial of service via unbounded atom creation from attacker-influenced binary input. Guardian.Plug.Keys derives connection and session namespace keys by passing arbitrary binaries to String.to_atom/1. base_key/1 in lib/guardian/plug/keys.ex converts any binary into the atom :"guardian_<input>", and the derived helpers claims_key/1, resource_key/1, and token_key/1 create a second atom on top of that. key_from_other/1 likewise converts a regex-captured binary through String.to_atom/1. The public specs advertise String.t() as a valid argument, so passing a string is documented usage, and higher-level entry points such as Guardian.Plug.current_token(conn, key: key) thread the caller-supplied key straight into these functions. String.to_atom/1 creates a brand-new atom for every previously unseen binary, atoms are never garbage collected, and the BEAM atom table is fixed at roughly 1,048,576 entries by default. An application that routes attacker-influenced data (a tenant identifier, header, or other request input) into a Guardian key therefore mints one permanent atom per distinct value. A modest stream of varied, unauthenticated input permanently consumes the atom table and crashes the BEAM node, taking down every application running on it. This issue affects guardian: from 0.1.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA