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

Comparison Overview

Parfums Christian DiorParfums Christian Dior
VS
KenvueKenvue
Parfums Christian Dior

Parfums Christian Dior

190, Avenue Charles de Gaulle, Neuilly-sur-Seine, 92200, FR

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.dior.com
535/1000Critical

Christian Dior described himself as a fashion and perfume designer. The House of Dior, founded in 1946, changed the face of style forever when its New Look was unveiled in the halls of 30 Avenue Montaigne on February 12th, 1947. The revolutionary look was accompanied by...

NAICS:32562
NAICS Definition:Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Employees:8,699
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2
Kenvue

Kenvue

Summit, New Jersey, US, 07901

Last Update: 10/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.kenvue.com
806/1000Good

Kenvue is the world’s largest pure-play consumer health company by revenue. Built on more than a century of heritage and propelled forward by science, our iconic brands — including Aveeno®, BAND-AID® Brand Adhesive Bandages, Johnson’s®, Listerine®, Neutrogena®, Tylenol®...

NAICS:32562
NAICS Definition:Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Employees:19,168
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Parfums Christian Dior

Parfums Christian Dior

-
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
Kenvue

Kenvue

-
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 Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Parfums Christian Dior in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Personal Care Product Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kenvue in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Parfums Christian Dior (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Parfums Christian Dior cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Kenvue cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Parfums Christian Dior

Parfums Christian Dior

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR3532535092325
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR711072225
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOUPARVOLTIFJAP1770908674
Kenvue

Kenvue

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90647
SUMMARY

ASE/Kalkitech ASE2000 V2 Communication Test Set 2.35 through 2.37 on Windows contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability in the IEC 60870-5-104 TLS client (Task Mode). This allows a network-positioned attacker to bypass certificate validation via a certificate with multiple simultaneous faults, enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack on protected communications.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-90487
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.4.2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file xxl-job-admin/src/main/java/com/xxl/job/admin/business/controller/JobGroupController.java. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.8
CVE-2026-90486
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in openstatusHQ openstatus up to f04c827112f30a11d571ebdad3892826034d6265. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file apps/status-page/src/lib/proxy/resolve-custom-domain-rewrite.ts. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The identifier of the patch is 86f370c9c20074c3c3fdec53a359874b8e670fd4. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue. This issue got fixed with a silent patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-79300
SUMMARY

SEP sesam before 5.2.0.24 mishandles User Authorization with MFA. If AD authentication is configured and MFA is enforced, an attacker can create a second OTP access capability. SEP sesam and Active Directory handle username capitalization differently, which may allow multiple SEP sesam user accounts to be created for the same Active Directory (AD) account. Active Directory treats usernames as case-insensitive, while SEP sesam distinguishes between different letter casing. As a result, the same AD user can be represented by multiple SEP sesam user accounts that differ only in username capitalization. When Active Directory authentication is configured and multi-factor authentication (MFA) is enforced, this behavior may allow an additional OTP Authenticator to be registered for the same AD account, reducing the effectiveness of MFA protection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90485
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in IOBit Uninstaller 15.5.0.11. Affected by this issue is the function sub_11838 of the file IURegistryFilter.sys of the component IOCTL Dispatch Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack requires local access. The exploit has been published and may be used. Identical IURegistryFilter.sys ships across multiple IObit families. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.8