Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

MontblancMontblanc
VS
Tiffany & Co.Tiffany & Co.
Montblanc

Montblanc

Hellgrundweg 100, Hamburg, 22525, DE

Last Update: 12/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.montblanc.com
777/1000Fair

What moves you makes us. What we create goes beyond conventional luxury. We make products for people who follow their passions, accomplish things and wish to leave a lasting legacy. And we achieve this because we employ people who are just like that, who let their pass...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:2,500
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

727 5th Ave, New York, 10022, US

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.tiffany.com
521/1000Critical

In 1837 Charles Lewis Tiffany founded his company in New York City where his store was soon acclaimed as the palace of jewels for its exceptional gemstones. Since then TIFFANY & CO. has become synonymous with elegance, innovative design, fine craftsmanship and creative ...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:10,681
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Montblanc

Montblanc

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Montblanc in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tiffany & Co. has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Montblanc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Montblanc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Tiffany & Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tiffany & Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Montblanc

Montblanc

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIFLVMCHR1770865579
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIF5392553091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOUPARVOLTIFJAP1770908674

FAQ

Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Montblanc company and Tiffany & Co. company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Montblanc and Tiffany & Co., which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Montblanc and Tiffany & Co., which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Montblanc or Tiffany & Co. ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Montblanc or Tiffany & Co. ?
Between Montblanc and Tiffany & Co., which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Montblanc and Tiffany & Co., which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9