Comparison Overview

Kering

VS

Pandora

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

Pandora

Havneholmen 17-19, None, Copenhagen, None, DK, 1561
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Pandora is the world’s largest jewellery brand. The company designs, manufactures and markets hand-finished jewellery made from high-quality materials at affordable prices Pandora jewellery is sold in more than 100 countries through more than 6,500 points of sale, including more than 2,500 concept stores. Headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark, Pandora employs 32,000 people worldwide and crafts its jewellery at two LEED-certified facilities in Thailand using mainly recycled silver and gold. Pandora is committed to leadership in sustainability and has set science-based targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% across its own operations and value chain by 2030. The company is listed on the Nasdaq Copenhagen stock exchange and generated revenue of DKK 26.5 billion (EUR 3.6 billion) in 2022. See all our products and collections on pandora.net Visit our guidelines for this channel, and what types of post we accept here: https://pandoragroup.com/media/Corporate-social-media-principles

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 19,614
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/pandora-a-s.jpeg
Pandora
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
Pandora
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)

Pandora 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 — Pandora (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pandora 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/pandora-a-s.jpeg
Pandora
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Supply Chain Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Pandora 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 Pandora company.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Kering nor Pandora holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

Neither Kering nor Pandora holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Kering nor Pandora holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Kering nor Pandora holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Kering nor Pandora holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Kering nor Pandora holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Kering nor Pandora 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