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

Comparison Overview

Becks Group AUBecks Group AU
VS
RichemontRichemont
Becks Group AU

Becks Group AU

Adelaide, Adelaide, 5013, AU

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.becksgroup.au/
654/1000Weak

At BECKS, we are proud to be an Australian, family-owned business, championing love in everything we do since 1976. For nearly 50 years, we’ve built a reputation as a leader in precious metals jewellery manufacturing and services. Our passion remains as strong as ever...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:35
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Richemont

Richemont

Chemin de la Chênaie 50, Bellevue, Geneva, CH, 1293

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.richemont.com/
834/1000Good

At Richemont, we craft the future. Our unique portfolio includes prestigious Maisons distinguished by their craftsmanship and creativity. Richemont’s ambition is to nurture its Maisons and businesses and enable them to grow and prosper in a responsible, sustainable mann...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:30,756
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Becks Group AU

Becks Group AU

-
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
Richemont

Richemont

-
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 Becks Group AU in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Richemont in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Becks Group AU (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Becks Group AU cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Richemont 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...
Becks Group AU

Becks Group AU

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
BARBEC1774232835
Richemont

Richemont

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1