Comparison Overview

Bunnings

VS

SEPHORA

Bunnings

570 Swan Street, Burnley, Victoria, 3121, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

We are the leading retailer of home improvement and outdoor living products in Australia & New Zealand and a major supplier to project builders, commercial tradespeople and the housing industry. Our ambition is to provide our customers with the widest range of home improvement products in accordance with our lowest prices policy, backed with the best service. Our social media community standards can be found here: https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/community-standards

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 15,633
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

SEPHORA

Neuilly sur Seine, Ile de France, FR, 92576
Last Update: 2025-11-23

Sephora is the world’s leading global prestige beauty retail brand. With over 56 000 talents across 35 markets, Sephora connects customers and beauty brands within the world’s most trusted and dynamic beauty community. We serve a highly engaged community of hundreds of millions of beauty followers across our global omnichannel network of more than 3 000 stores and iconic flagships, and our e-commerce and digital platforms, offering personalized and immersive seamless experiences across every touchpoint. With our curation of close to 500 brands and our own label, Sephora Collection, we offer the most unique and diverse range of prestige beauty products, tailored to our customers’ needs from fragrance to make-up, haircare, skincare and beyond, as we constantly reimagine the world of prestige beauty. Since our inception in 1969 in Limoges, France, and as part of the LVMH Group since 1997, we have been disrupting the prestige beauty retail industry. Today, we continue to break with convention to drive our mission: champion a world of inspiration and inclusion where everyone can celebrate their beauty.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 42,667
Subsidiaries: 101
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
12
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bunnings.jpeg
Bunnings
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sephora.jpeg
SEPHORA
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Bunnings
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SEPHORA
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bunnings in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SEPHORA in 2025.

Incident History — Bunnings (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bunnings cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — SEPHORA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SEPHORA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bunnings.jpeg
Bunnings
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sephora.jpeg
SEPHORA
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: National Security, Social Stability, Data Sovereignty, Economic Protection
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

SEPHORA company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bunnings company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

SEPHORA company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Bunnings company has not reported any.

In the current year, SEPHORA company has reported more cyber incidents than Bunnings company.

Neither SEPHORA company nor Bunnings company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

SEPHORA company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Bunnings company has not reported such incidents publicly.

SEPHORA company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Bunnings company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Bunnings company nor SEPHORA company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bunnings nor SEPHORA holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

SEPHORA company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Bunnings company.

SEPHORA company employs more people globally than Bunnings company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither Bunnings nor SEPHORA holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bunnings nor SEPHORA holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bunnings nor SEPHORA holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bunnings nor SEPHORA holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bunnings nor SEPHORA holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bunnings nor SEPHORA holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H