Comparison Overview
Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co.
1155 Battery St, San Francisco, US
Last Update: 05/09/2026
You’re an original. So are we. We’re a company of people who like to forge our own path. We invented the blue jean in 1873, and we reinvented khaki pants in 1986. We pioneered labor and environmental guidelines in manufacturing. And we work to build sustainability int...

J.Crew
225 Liberty St, New York, New York, US, 10281
Last Update: 06/09/2026
Since 1983, we’ve been designing pieces that feel both familiar and refreshingly new, crafted with unbeatable quality and distinctive point of view...it’s no wonder we’ve been in your closet for four decades and counting. Today, we continue to do the classics our way, ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Levi Strauss & Co.







J.Crew






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
Levi Strauss & Co. has 57.98% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for J.Crew in 2026.
Incident History - Levi Strauss & Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Levi Strauss & Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - J.Crew (X = Date, Y = Severity)
J.Crew cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Levi Strauss & Co.

J.Crew
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.
Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.
IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.
IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.
IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.