Comparison Overview

Simon Property Group

VS

Empire Company Limited

Simon Property Group

225 W Washington St, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

Simon is a global leader in the ownership of premier shopping, dining, entertainment and mixed-use destinations and an S&P 100 company (Simon Property Group, NYSE: SPG). Our properties across North America, Europe, and Asia provide community gathering places for millions of people every day and generate billions in annual sales. Our portfolio includes assets of national and international renown - proven assets that are the preferred location for retailers. In addition to our high quality properties, Simon is also known for our strong balance sheet, a long-tenured and well-respected senior management team, and our innovative spirit, as reflected in a 50 + year history of successful retail real estate development, management & leasing. Employment at Simon is considered the pinnacle of a career by real estate professionals due to our leadership position in the industry. With a total market capitalization of over $80 billion, we are well positioned to continue to deliver strong financial results and create shareholder value. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, we employ approximately 4,800 people across the United States.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 3,623
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Empire Company Limited

115 King St Stellarton, NS B0K 1S0, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Empire Company Limited (TSX: EMP.A) is a Canadian company headquartered in Stellarton, Nova Scotia. Empire’s key businesses are food retailing, through wholly-owned subsidiary Sobeys Inc., and related real estate. With approximately $30.5 billion in annual sales and $16.5 billion in assets, Empire Company Limited and its subsidiaries, franchisees and affiliates employ approximately 131,000 people.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/simon-property-group.jpeg
Simon Property Group
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/empire-company-limited.jpeg
Empire Company Limited
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
Simon Property Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Empire Company Limited
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Simon Property Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Empire Company Limited in 2025.

Incident History — Simon Property Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Simon Property Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Empire Company Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Empire Company Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/simon-property-group.jpeg
Simon Property Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/empire-company-limited.jpeg
Empire Company Limited
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Simon Property Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Empire Company Limited company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Empire Company Limited company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Simon Property Group company.

In the current year, Empire Company Limited company and Simon Property Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Empire Company Limited company nor Simon Property Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Empire Company Limited company nor Simon Property Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Empire Company Limited company nor Simon Property Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Simon Property Group company nor Empire Company Limited company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Simon Property Group nor Empire Company Limited holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Simon Property Group company nor Empire Company Limited company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Empire Company Limited company employs more people globally than Simon Property Group company, reflecting its scale as a Real Estate.

Neither Simon Property Group nor Empire Company Limited holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Simon Property Group nor Empire Company Limited holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Simon Property Group nor Empire Company Limited holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Simon Property Group nor Empire Company Limited holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Simon Property Group nor Empire Company Limited holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Simon Property Group nor Empire Company Limited 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