Comparison Overview

Gucci

VS

Prada Group

Gucci

Via Don Lorenzo Perosi, 6, Casellina di Scandicci, Florence, IT, 50018
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

Founded in Florence, Italy in 1921, Gucci is one of the world’s leading luxury brands. Following the House’s centenary, Gucci forges ahead continuing to redefine fashion and luxury while celebrating creativity, Italian craftsmanship, and innovation. Gucci is part of the global luxury group Kering, which manages renowned Houses in fashion, leather goods, jewelry, and eyewear. Discover more about Gucci at www.gucci.com.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 16,410
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Prada Group

Via Antonio Fogazzaro, 28, None, Milan , Milan , IT, 20135
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 800 and 849

The Prada Group is a global leader in the luxury industry and a pioneer in its unconventional dialogue with contemporary society across diverse cultural spheres. Home to prestigious brands as Prada, Miu Miu, Church’s, Car Shoe, Marchesi 1824 and Luna Rossa, the Group remains committed to enhancing their value by increasing their visibility and desirability over time. Promoting creativity and sustainable growth, the Group offers its brands a shared vision that gives each of them the opportunity to stand out and express their essence. With 26 owned factories and over 14,800 employees, the Group designs and produces ready-to-wear, leather goods, footwear and jewellery collections, and distributes its products in more than 70 countries, through 606 Directly Operated Stores (DOS), e-commerce channels and selected e-tailers and department stores. Prada Group also operates in the eyewear and beauty sectors through licensing agreements with industry leaders. Prada S.p.A. is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange as 1913.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 11,309
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gucci.jpeg
Gucci
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/pradagroup.jpeg
Prada Group
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
Gucci
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Prada Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Gucci in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Prada Group in 2025.

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

Gucci cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Prada Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prada Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gucci.jpeg
Gucci
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Credential Theft (Salesforce Logins), Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Exfiltration for Secondary Exploitation
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Cloud Account (Salesforce), Credential Theft/Phishing (likely)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Ransom Demand), Data Theft for Resale
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pradagroup.jpeg
Prada Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Gucci company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Prada Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Gucci company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Prada Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Gucci company has reported more cyber incidents than Prada Group company.

Neither Prada Group company nor Gucci company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Gucci company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Prada Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Gucci company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Prada Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Gucci company nor Prada Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Gucci nor Prada Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Gucci company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Prada Group company.

Gucci company employs more people globally than Prada Group company, reflecting its scale as a Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry.

Neither Gucci nor Prada Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Gucci nor Prada Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Gucci nor Prada Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Gucci nor Prada Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Gucci nor Prada Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Gucci nor Prada Group 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