Comparison Overview

Gucci

VS

Tiffany & Co.

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

Tiffany & Co.

727 5th Ave, New York, New York, US, 10022
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 700 and 749

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 excellence. During the 20th century fame thrived worldwide with store network expansion and continuous cultural relevance, as exemplified by Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s and the film starring Audrey Hepburn. Today, with more than 13,000 employees, TIFFANY & CO. and its subsidiaries design, manufacture and market jewelry, watches and luxury accessories – including more than 5,000 skilled artisans who cut diamonds and craft jewelry in the Company’s workshops, realizing its commitment to superlative quality. The Company operates more than 300 TIFFANY & CO. retail stores worldwide as part of its omni-channel approach. To learn more about TIFFANY & CO. as well as its commitment to sustainability, please visit tiffany.com.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 10,249
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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/tiffany-and-co.jpeg
Tiffany & Co.
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
Tiffany & Co.
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)

Tiffany & Co. has 61.29% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Gucci cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Tiffany & Co. 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/tiffany-and-co.jpeg
Tiffany & Co.
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Gucci company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Tiffany & Co. company.

In the current year, Tiffany & Co. and Gucci have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Neither Tiffany & Co. company nor Gucci company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Tiffany & Co. company and Gucci company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Gucci company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Tiffany & Co. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Gucci company nor Tiffany & Co. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Gucci nor Tiffany & Co. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Gucci company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Tiffany & Co. company.

Gucci company employs more people globally than Tiffany & Co. company, reflecting its scale as a Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry.

Neither Gucci nor Tiffany & Co. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Gucci nor Tiffany & Co. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Gucci nor Tiffany & Co. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Gucci nor Tiffany & Co. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Gucci nor Tiffany & Co. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Gucci nor Tiffany & Co. 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