Comparison Overview

Kering

VS

CHANEL

Kering

40, rue de Sèvres, None, PARIS, None, FR, 75007
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 700 and 749

Kering is a global, family-led luxury group, home to people whose passion and expertise nurture creative Houses across ready-to-wear and couture, leather goods, jewelry, eyewear and beauty: Gucci, Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga, McQueen, Brioni, Boucheron, Pomellato, Dodo, Qeelin, Ginori 1735, as well as Kering Eyewear and Kering Beauté. Inspired by their creative heritage, Kering’s Houses design and craft exceptional products and experiences that reflect the Group’s commitment to excellence, sustainability and culture. This vision is expressed in our signature: Creativity is our Legacy.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 37,699
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

CHANEL

None, None, London, England, GB, W1J 6TL
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Chanel is a private company and world leader in creating, manufacturing and distributing luxury products, including Ready-to-Wear, Accessories, Fragrances, Makeup, Skincare, Jewellery and Watches. Founded by Gabrielle Chanel in 1910, the House remains dedicated to exceptional craftsmanship and offering high-end creations. Chanel employs more than 32,000 people worldwide.​ ​ As part of this, the House promotes arts, culture and creativity, while investing significantly in key areas including research & development, sustainability, and innovation.​ ​ Chanel is dedicated to creating the conditions for people to perform at their best, building on their strengths and enabling them to benefit from new opportunities. It offers a unique working environment where people are given time to understand the brand, the business, and develop their personal motivations. This means everyone can grow, continue to be inspired and feel included, now and in the future. The company fosters true collaboration and respect for all, grounded in the belief that diversity is essential to the success of the organisation and its people.​ ​ Chanel is committed to rewarding people competitively, as well as offering initiatives such as wellbeing programmes, learning and development opportunities, and parental leave for all parents globally.​

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 28,159
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/kering.jpeg
Kering
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/chanel.jpeg
CHANEL
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
Kering
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CHANEL
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

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

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

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

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

Kering cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

CHANEL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kering.jpeg
Kering
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/chanel.jpeg
CHANEL
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering (Vishing)
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Kering company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to CHANEL company.

In the current year, CHANEL and Kering have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Neither CHANEL company nor Kering company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both CHANEL company and Kering company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Kering company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while CHANEL company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Kering company nor CHANEL company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Kering nor CHANEL holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Kering company nor CHANEL company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Kering company employs more people globally than CHANEL company, reflecting its scale as a Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry.

Neither Kering nor CHANEL holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Kering nor CHANEL holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Kering nor CHANEL holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Kering nor CHANEL holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Kering nor CHANEL holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Kering nor CHANEL 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