Comparison Overview

John Lewis Partnership

VS

Landmark Group

John Lewis Partnership

Carlisle Place, London, England, SW1P 1BX, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Working in Partnership for a happier world. Our Partnership is an ongoing experiment to find happier, more trusted ways of doing business, for the benefit of us all. We work together to create a successful business and a fairer, more sustainable future for Partners, customers, suppliers and communities. Our Partnership is owned entirely in trust by Partners which means we are more than employees; we share knowledge, power and profit. Our Purpose inspires our principles, drives our decisions and acts as our guide. Visit www.jlpjobs.com directly to view our current opportunities.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 34,251
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Landmark Group

None, None, Dubai, None, AE, None
Last Update: 2025-11-20

Founded in 1973 in Bahrain, Landmark Group has grown to become one of the largest and most successful omnichannel retail and hospitality conglomerates, with presence across 17 countries in the Middle East, Africa, India and Southeast Asia. Based in the UAE since 1990, the Group owns and operates 21 established homegrown and 4 franchise brands across an extensive network of more than 2,200 outlets, encompassing a gross leasable area of 30 million square feet. Landmark Group's success is driven by its diverse portfolio of established brands, across multiple retail categories, offering a comprehensive range of products across fashion, home, groceries and electronics. These include Centrepoint, Max Fashion, Home Centre, Babyshop, Splash, Shoemart, Lifestyle, Viva, Emax, Home Box, Styli, Shoexpress, Spar and Easybuy. Beyond retail, Landmark Group has diversified into the leisure, fitness and hospitality sectors with brands like Fitness First, Citymax, Fun City, Fun Ville, Zafran and Carluccio’s. The Group boasts unparalleled logistics capabilities, owning the MENA region's largest privately-owned distribution hub - Omega Logistics and Logistiq, which offers state-of-the-art third-party logistics services. Landmark Group places a strong emphasis on delivering exceptional value and achieving customer satisfaction throughout its comprehensive product range. Across its loyalty programmes, the Group enjoys a loyal customer base with more than 35 million active users. The company has a dedicated workforce of more than 53,000 employees and continues to be certified as a Great Place to Work (GPTW) since 2017.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 29,691
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/john-lewis-partnership.jpeg
John Lewis Partnership
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/landmark-group.jpeg
Landmark 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
John Lewis Partnership
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Landmark Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for John Lewis Partnership in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Landmark Group in 2025.

Incident History — John Lewis Partnership (X = Date, Y = Severity)

John Lewis Partnership cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Landmark Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/john-lewis-partnership.jpeg
John Lewis Partnership
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/landmark-group.jpeg
Landmark Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Landmark Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to John Lewis Partnership company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Landmark Group company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to John Lewis Partnership company.

In the current year, Landmark Group company and John Lewis Partnership company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Landmark Group company nor John Lewis Partnership company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Landmark Group company nor John Lewis Partnership company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Landmark Group company nor John Lewis Partnership company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither John Lewis Partnership company nor Landmark Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither John Lewis Partnership nor Landmark Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Landmark Group company and John Lewis Partnership company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

John Lewis Partnership company employs more people globally than Landmark Group company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither John Lewis Partnership nor Landmark Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither John Lewis Partnership nor Landmark Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither John Lewis Partnership nor Landmark Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither John Lewis Partnership nor Landmark Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither John Lewis Partnership nor Landmark Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither John Lewis Partnership nor Landmark 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