Comparison Overview

Moncler

VS

Gucci

Moncler

Via Stendhal 47, Milan, undefined, 20144, IT
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Moncler was founded in Grenoble, France, in 1952 and is currently headquartered in Milan, Italy. Over the years the brand has combined style with constant technological research assisted by experts in activities linked to the world of the mountain. This makes the Moncler collections the quintessence of outwear that marries the extreme demands of nature with those of city life. In 2003 Remo Ruffini took over the company, of which he is currently President and Creative Director. Moncler manufactures and directly distributes men's, women's and accessory collections through its boutiques and in exclusive international department stores and multi-brand outlets.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 3,548
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Gucci

Via Don Lorenzo Perosi, 6, Casellina di Scandicci, Florence, IT, 50018
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

Founded in Florence, Italy in 1921, Gucci is one of the world’s leading luxury brands. Following the House’s centenary, Gucci forges ahead continuing to redefine fashion and luxury while celebrating creativity, Italian craftsmanship, and innovation. Gucci is part of the global luxury group Kering, which manages renowned Houses in fashion, leather goods, jewelry, and eyewear. Discover more about Gucci at www.gucci.com.

NAICS: 4483
NAICS Definition: Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees: 16,410
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/moncler.jpeg
Moncler
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/gucci.jpeg
Gucci
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
Moncler
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Gucci
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Moncler in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Gucci in 2025.

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

Moncler cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Gucci cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/moncler.jpeg
Moncler
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gucci.jpeg
Gucci
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

FAQ

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

Gucci company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Moncler company.

In the current year, Gucci company has reported more cyber incidents than Moncler company.

Neither Gucci company nor Moncler company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Gucci company and Moncler company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Gucci company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Moncler company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Moncler company nor Gucci company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Moncler nor Gucci holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Gucci company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Moncler company.

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

Neither Moncler nor Gucci holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Moncler nor Gucci holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Moncler nor Gucci holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Moncler nor Gucci holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Moncler nor Gucci holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Moncler nor Gucci 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