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

Comparison Overview

De Beers GroupDe Beers Group
VS
Tiffany & Co.Tiffany & Co.
De Beers Group

De Beers Group

N/A

Last Update: 23/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.debeersgroup.com
781/1000Fair

The only luxury diamond brand present at source. Discovering nature’s brilliant treasures since 1888 - each creating opportunities for people and the planet. #Building Forever

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:4,109
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

727 5th Ave, New York, 10022, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.tiffany.com
493/1000Critical

In 1837 Charles Lewis Tiffany founded his company in New York City where his store was soon acclaimed as the palace of jewels for its exceptional gemstones. Since then TIFFANY & CO. has become synonymous with elegance, innovative design, fine craftsmanship and creative ...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:10,681
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
De Beers Group

De Beers Group

-
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
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

-
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 De Beers Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tiffany & Co. has 8.26% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - De Beers Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

De Beers Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Tiffany & Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tiffany & Co. 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...
De Beers Group

De Beers Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIFLVMCHR1770865579
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIF5392553091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOUPARVOLTIFJAP1770908674

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44654
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, a shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the shared agent — breaking the owner's other private agents that reference the same `file_id`. The private agent retains a stale `file_id` reference that no longer resolves. A shared-agent editor can destroy files that the owner uses across multiple agents. The owner's private agents — which the attacker has no access to — break silently with stale `file_id` references. This is a cross-agent integrity violation: editing access to one agent should not affect another. Version 0.8.4 contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-44653
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed secrets through `GET /api/mcp/servers` and `GET /api/mcp/servers/:serverName`. The returned config includes plaintext values for `apiKey.key` and `oauth.client_secret`. This allows viewers of a shared MCP server to exfiltrate the underlying provider credentials. Version 0.8..4 contains a patch. Other remediations include: never returning decrypted admin-managed secrets to non-owners; redacting apiKey.key and oauth.client_secret from all API responses consider returning only boolean presence indicators for secrets, similar to the auth-values route pattern; and, if owners need to edit configs without re-entering secrets, preserving secrets server-side and returning placeholders instead of plaintext.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-42507
SUMMARY

When returning errors, functions in the net/textproto package would include its input as part of the error. This might allow an attacker to inject misleading content to errors that are printed or logged.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-42504
SUMMARY

Decoding a maliciously-crafted MIME header containing many invalid encoded-words can consume excessive CPU.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-41412
SUMMARY

alf.io is an open source ticket reservation system for conferences, trade shows, workshops, and meetups. Prior to version 2.0-M5-2606, the alf.io extension sandbox injects a fully-functional HTTP client (`simpleHttpClient`) into every extension script's scope. The `postFileAndSaveResponse()` method accepts an arbitrary filesystem path as its `file` parameter and reads the file contents using `new FileInputStream(file)` with no path validation, directory restriction, or allowlist. A malicious extension script can read any file accessible to the JVM process user and exfiltrate it to an attacker-controlled server via HTTP POST. Version 2.0-M5-2606 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2