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

Comparison Overview

SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, FursacSMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac
VS
CoachCoach
SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac

SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac

49, rue Etienne Marcel, None, 75001, Paris, FR, None

Last Update: 30/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smcp.com/
762/1000Fair

SMCP is worldwide and cosmopolitan. With four Brands, 6 800 passionate and responsible entrepreneurs, and over 1 730 points of sale in 47 countries, our ambition is to become the global leader in accessible luxury. Made of passion and high standards, we dedicate our c...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:5,487
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Coach

Coach

10 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, US, 10001

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.coach.com
793/1000Fair

Coach was founded in 1941 as a family-run workshop. In a Manhattan loft, six artisans handcrafted a collection of leather goods using skills handed down from generation to generation. Discerning consumers soon began to seek out the quality and unique nature of Coach cra...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:12,832
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac

SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac

-
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
Coach

Coach

-
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 Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coach in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Coach 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...
SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac

SMCP – Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot, Fursac

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Coach

Coach

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1