Comparison Overview

Coach

VS

HUGO BOSS

Coach

10 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, 10001, US
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Coach was founded in 1941 as a family-run workshop. In a Manhattan loft, six artisans handcrafted a collection of leather goods using skills handed down from generation to generation. Discerning consumers soon began to seek out the quality and unique nature of Coach craftsmanship. Now greatly expanded, Coach is a modern American luxury brand with a rich heritage of craftsmanship and New York style. We continue to maintain the highest standards for materials and workmanship. Coach's exceptional workforce remains committed to carefully upholding the principles of quality and integrity that define the company. We attribute the prominence of the Coach brand to the unique combination of our original American attitude and design, our heritage of fine leather goods and custom fabrics, our superior product quality and durability, and our commitment to customer service.

NAICS: 448
NAICS Definition: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees: 11,785
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

HUGO BOSS

Holy-Allee 3, Metzingen, Baden-Württemberg, 72555, DE
Last Update: 2025-11-21

At HUGO BOSS, we firmly believe that the passion and dedication of our employees is the essence for the successful execution of our “CLAIM 5” growth strategy. A strong commitment to empowering people and teams is therefore firmly anchored in “CLAIM 5”. In this context, our HUGO BOSS values – entrepreneurial spirit, personal ownership, team mentality, simplicity & quality, and youthful spirit – play a key role. They form the guiding principle for day-to-day cooperation and are intended to foster a spirit of mutual trust. The aim is to create an environment that enables all employees to develop their individual talents and thus directly contribute to the success of “CLAIM 5”. On top of that, HUGO BOSS intends to continue positioning itself as one of the most attractive employers in the fashion industry. This, in turn, should enable us to attract the best talents in the sector.

NAICS: 448
NAICS Definition: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees: 15,186
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coach.jpeg
Coach
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/hugo-boss.jpeg
HUGO BOSS
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
Coach
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
HUGO BOSS
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Coach in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for HUGO BOSS in 2025.

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

Coach cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — HUGO BOSS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HUGO BOSS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coach.jpeg
Coach
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hugo-boss.jpeg
HUGO BOSS
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, HUGO BOSS company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Coach company.

In the current year, HUGO BOSS company and Coach company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither HUGO BOSS company nor Coach company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither HUGO BOSS company nor Coach company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither HUGO BOSS company nor Coach company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Coach company nor HUGO BOSS company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Coach nor HUGO BOSS holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Coach company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to HUGO BOSS company.

HUGO BOSS company employs more people globally than Coach company, reflecting its scale as a Retail Apparel and Fashion.

Neither Coach nor HUGO BOSS holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Coach nor HUGO BOSS holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Coach nor HUGO BOSS holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Coach nor HUGO BOSS holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Coach nor HUGO BOSS holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Coach nor HUGO BOSS 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