Comparison Overview
Marc Jacobs

Marc Jacobs
72 Spring St, New York, 10012, US
Last Update: 04/01/2026
For nearly 40 years, Marc Jacobs has been a driving force in fashion with his philosophy: pioneering designs, an irreverent spirit, the everyday and the extraordinary. Today, the brand continues to make its Marc as rebellious, unpredictable, and original. Our work is...

Levi Strauss & Co.
1155 Battery St, San Francisco, US
Last Update: 07/08/2026
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...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Marc Jacobs







Levi Strauss & Co.






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Marc Jacobs in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
Levi Strauss & Co. has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Marc Jacobs (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Marc Jacobs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Levi Strauss & Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Levi Strauss & Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Marc Jacobs

Levi Strauss & Co.
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.