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...

Tommy Hilfiger
Danzigerkade 165, Amsterdam, North Holland, NL, 1013
Last Update: 01/04/2026
TOMMY HILFIGER is one of the world’s leading designer lifestyle brands creating a platform that inspires the modern American spirit, while committing to wasting nothing and welcoming all. Founded in 1985, Tommy Hilfiger delivers premium styling, quality and value to c...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Marc Jacobs







Tommy Hilfiger






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)
No incidents recorded for Tommy Hilfiger in 2026.
Incident History - Marc Jacobs (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Marc Jacobs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Tommy Hilfiger (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Tommy Hilfiger cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Marc Jacobs

Tommy Hilfiger
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.
OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.
MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.
The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.
The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.