Comparison Overview

JD Sports Fashion

VS

L Brands

JD Sports Fashion

Hollins Brook Way, Bury, England, GB, BL9 8RR
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 700 and 749

Founded in 1981 with a single store in the Northwest of England, JD Group has grown into a leading global omni-channel retailer in Sports Fashion, Outdoors, and Gyms. Our diverse and dedicated teams operate across a portfolio of renowned retail brands in multiple international markets. Listed on the London Stock Exchange since 1996 and a proud member of the FTSE100 since 2019, JD Group continues to expand both in the UK and globally driven by a commitment to innovation, excellence, and possibility. Our vision is to become the world’s most trusted and dynamic omni-channel retailer in the sports and outdoor industry. We welcome individuals from all backgrounds to join us in shaping this future. If you're passionate about contributing to an inclusive, people-first, and customer-centric organisation and are motivated by continuous growth and operational excellence we’d love to hear from you.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 27,171
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

L Brands

3 Limited Parkway, Columbus, OH, 43230, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

On August 2, 2021, L Brands (NYSE: LB) completed the separation of the Victoria’s Secret business into an independent, public company through a tax-free spin-off to L Brands shareholders. The new company, named Victoria’s Secret & Co., includes Victoria’s Secret Lingerie, PINK and Victoria’s Secret Beauty. Victoria’s Secret & Co. is a NYSE listed company trading under the ticker symbol VSCO. In conjunction with this announcement, L Brands changed its name to Bath & Body Works, Inc. and now trades under the ticker symbol BBWI. For more information on Bath & Body Works, Inc. or Victoria’s Secret & Co., please visit the corporate websites.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 10,154
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jd-sports-fashion-plc.jpeg
JD Sports Fashion
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/limited-brands.jpeg
L Brands
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
JD Sports Fashion
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
L Brands
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JD Sports Fashion in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for L Brands in 2025.

Incident History — JD Sports Fashion (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JD Sports Fashion cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — L Brands (X = Date, Y = Severity)

L Brands cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jd-sports-fashion-plc.jpeg
JD Sports Fashion
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 01/2023
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Motivation: Unknown
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/limited-brands.jpeg
L Brands
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

L Brands company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to JD Sports Fashion company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

JD Sports Fashion company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas L Brands company has not reported any.

In the current year, L Brands company and JD Sports Fashion company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither L Brands company nor JD Sports Fashion company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

JD Sports Fashion company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other L Brands company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither L Brands company nor JD Sports Fashion company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither JD Sports Fashion company nor L Brands company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither JD Sports Fashion nor L Brands holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

JD Sports Fashion company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to L Brands company.

JD Sports Fashion company employs more people globally than L Brands company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither JD Sports Fashion nor L Brands holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither JD Sports Fashion nor L Brands holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither JD Sports Fashion nor L Brands holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither JD Sports Fashion nor L Brands holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither JD Sports Fashion nor L Brands holds HIPAA certification.

Neither JD Sports Fashion nor L Brands 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