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

Comparison Overview

CHANELCHANEL
VS
LVMHLVMH
CHANEL

CHANEL

London, W1J 6TL, GB

Last Update: 30/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.chanel.com
700/1000Moderate

Chanel is a private company and world leader in creating, manufacturing and distributing luxury products, including Ready-to-Wear, Accessories, Fragrances, Makeup, Skincare, Jewellery and Watches. Founded by Gabrielle Chanel in 1910, the House remains dedicated to excep...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:29,361
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1
LVMH

LVMH

22, avenue Montaigne, Paris, 75008, FR

Last Update: 14/08/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.lvmh.com
713/1000Moderate

LVMH is the world leader in luxury. A family group founded in 1987 and headed by Chairman and CEO Bernard Arnault, LVMH is now home to 75 iconic Maisons, which embody a distinctive art de vivre blending heritage and modernity. With reported sales of 86.2 billion euros ...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:147,344
Subsidiaries:75
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CHANEL

CHANEL

-
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
LVMH

LVMH

-
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 CHANEL in 2026.

Incidents

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

LVMH has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

CHANEL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LVMH 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...
CHANEL

CHANEL

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI1122911112425
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHA340080725
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI0292402112125
LVMH

LVMH

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIFLVMCHR1770865579
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI0292402112125
🔒 Incident : Breach
LVM852071225

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8