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

Comparison Overview

Editions de Parfums Frédéric MalleEditions de Parfums Frédéric Malle
VS
LVMHLVMH
Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle

Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle

21 rue du Mont Thabor, Paris, France, 75001, FR

Last Update: 18/02/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

The creation of Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle in 2000 heralded a return to luxury perfumery. At a time when perfumers remained relatively unknown, Frédéric Malle created a brand that draws perfumers out of the shadows and into the light, where they could finally be...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:48
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LVMH

LVMH

22, avenue Montaigne, Paris, 75008, FR

Last Update: 18/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.lvmh.com
746/1000Moderate

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
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle

Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle

-
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 Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle in 2026.

Incidents

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

LVMH has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle 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...
Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle

Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LVMH

LVMH

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIFLVMCHR1770865579
🔒 Incident : Breach
LVM852071225

FAQ

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