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

Comparison Overview

Ermenegildo Zegna GroupErmenegildo Zegna Group
VS
SWAROVSKISWAROVSKI
Ermenegildo Zegna Group

Ermenegildo Zegna Group

N/A

Last Update: 15/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.zegnagroup.com
779/1000Fair

About Ermenegildo Zegna Group Founded in 1910 in Trivero, Italy, the Ermenegildo Zegna Group (NYSE:ZGN) is a global luxury company with a leading position in the high-end menswear business. Through its three complementary brands, the Group reaches a wide range of commun...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:5,001-10,000
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
SWAROVSKI

SWAROVSKI

Alte Landstrasse, 411, Männedorf, CH, 8708

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

Masters of Light Since 1895 Swarovski creates beautiful products of impeccable quality and craftsmanship that bring joy and celebrate individuality. Founded in 1895 in Austria, the company designs, manufactures, and sells the world's finest crystals, Swarovski Created ...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:11,004
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ermenegildo Zegna Group

Ermenegildo Zegna 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
SWAROVSKI

SWAROVSKI

-
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 Ermenegildo Zegna Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for SWAROVSKI in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ermenegildo Zegna Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ermenegildo Zegna Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

SWAROVSKI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Ermenegildo Zegna Group

Ermenegildo Zegna Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
SWAROVSKI

SWAROVSKI

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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