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

Comparison Overview

OMEGA SAOMEGA SA
VS
Tiffany & Co.Tiffany & Co.
OMEGA SA

OMEGA SA

Rue Jakob-Stämpfli 96, Bienne 4, 2500, CH

Last Update: 07/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://omegawatches.com
780/1000Fair

OMEGA is a company of the Swatch Group, the world’s leading watch manufacturer. Since 1848, the brand has been synonymous with excellence, innovation, design and precision. Thanks to its pioneering spirit, OMEGA was the first watch worn on the moon, and it has enjoyed m...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:3,989
Subsidiaries:1
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: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.tiffany.com
493/1000Critical

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
OMEGA SA

OMEGA SA

-
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 OMEGA SA in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tiffany & Co. has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - OMEGA SA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OMEGA SA 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...
OMEGA SA

OMEGA SA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2