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

Comparison Overview

BershkaBershka
VS
Ralph LaurenRalph Lauren
Bershka

Bershka

Ctra. Tordera-Palafols, PK 06., Tordera, Barcelona, 08490, ES

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bershka.com
785/1000Fair

Together we are… We are real, we are fearless, we are brave. We follow our own path, we respect each other, we listen. We are inclusive, a brand for the whole world. We care about the planet and creating a sustainable future. We are playful, never boring. We are modern,...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:7,267
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ralph Lauren

Ralph Lauren

650 Madison Ave, New York, US

Last Update: 10/07/2026

View Profile
726/1000Moderate

Ralph Lauren Corporation (NYSE:RL) is a global leader in the design, marketing and distribution of luxury lifestyle products in five categories: apparel, footwear & accessories, home, fragrances and hospitality. For more than 50 years, Ralph Lauren has sought to inspire...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:21,231
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bershka

Bershka

-
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
Ralph Lauren

Ralph Lauren

-
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 Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bershka in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

Ralph Lauren has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Bershka cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ralph Lauren (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ralph Lauren 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...
Bershka

Bershka

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ralph Lauren

Ralph Lauren

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RAL1781828694
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NTTPLURALCARHEL1776148133

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8