Comparison Overview
Swatch Group

Swatch Group
Seevorstadt 6, Biel, Berne, CH, 2502
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Swatch Group is the world's number one manufacturer of finished watches. With its 16 watch brands, the Group is present in all price segments, and is also active in the manufacture and sale of jewelry, watch movements and components. Swatch Group unites, among other co...

Cartier
Route des Biches 10, Meyrin, CH, CH, 1217
Last Update: 01/04/2026
A reference in the world of luxury, Cartier, whose name is synonymous with open-mindedness and curiosity, stands out with its creations and finds beauty wherever it may lie. The Maison has several areas of expression. From jewelry to high jewelry, from watchmaking to f...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Swatch Group







Cartier






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Swatch Group in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Cartier in 2026.
Incident History - Swatch Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Swatch Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Cartier (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Cartier cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Swatch Group

Cartier
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
The Admin Columns plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection leading to Remote Code Execution in versions up to and including 7.0.18. This is due to the use of `unserialize()` without an `allowed_classes` restriction in the `IdsToCollection::get_ids_from_string()` function, which processes attacker-controlled post meta values without proper validation. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject a serialized PHP object into a post's custom meta field and trigger arbitrary code execution by exploiting a bundled POP gadget chain, resulting in remote code execution as the web server user.
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/tags/7.0.16/classes/Formatter/IdsToCollection.php#L42
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/tags/7.0.16/classes/Formatter/Meta.php#L34
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/tags/7.0.16/vendor/laravel/serializable-closure/src/Serializers/Native.php#L148
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/tags/7.0.16/vendor/laravel/serializable-closure/src/Support/ClosureStream.php#L47
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/trunk/classes/Formatter/IdsToCollection.php#L42
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/trunk/classes/Formatter/Meta.php#L34
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/trunk/vendor/laravel/serializable-closure/src/Serializers/Native.php#L148
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codepress-admin-columns/trunk/vendor/laravel/serializable-closure/src/Support/ClosureStream.php#L47
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=&sfph_mail=&reponame=&old=3553297%40codepress-admin-columns&new=3553297%40codepress-admin-columns&sfp_email=&sfph_mail=
- https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/051a3967-ef86-49bc-b72c-23e43568fef6?source=cve
The Alba Board plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to access arbitrary private alba_card post data, including title, description, assignee, due date, tags, and comments, that is intended to be restricted to Administrators and Editors. The handler is registered via the wp_ajax_nopriv_ hook and its nonce is exposed to all site visitors through wp_localize_script on pages containing the [alba_board] shortcode, making this exploitable by unauthenticated users who can access any such page.
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/alba-board/tags/1.1.0/includes/ajax-card-details.php#L12
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/alba-board/tags/1.1.0/includes/ajax-card-details.php#L20
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/alba-board/tags/2.1.0/includes/ajax-card-details.php#L12
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/alba-board/tags/2.1.0/includes/ajax-card-details.php#L20
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/alba-board/trunk/includes/ajax-card-details.php#L12
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/alba-board/trunk/includes/ajax-card-details.php#L20
- https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=&sfph_mail=&reponame=&old=3551180%40alba-board&new=3551180%40alba-board&sfp_email=&sfph_mail=
- https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/efe57241-2bb3-41d1-8638-b69ceaff0b4f?source=cve
Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) for Python provides support for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) and Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing. In versions prior to 3.15, payloads such as `"\u0660" * N` or `"\u30fb" * N + "\u6f22"` utilize the `valid_contexto` function prior to length rejection, and for high values of `N` will take a long time to process. This is the same issue as CVE-2024-3651, however the original remediation in 2024 was not a complete fix. A specially crafted argument to the `idna.encode()` function could consume significant resources. This may lead to a denial-of-service. Starting in version 3.14, the function rejects long inputs as soon as practicable prior to any further processing to minimize resource consumption. In version 3.15, this approach was extended to lesser used alternate functions (i.e. per-label conversions and codec support). A workaround is available. Domain names cannot exceed 253 characters in length. If this length limit is enforced prior to passing the domain to the `idna.encode()` function, it should no longer consume significant resources. This is triggered by arbitrarily large inputs that would not occur in normal usage, but may be passed to the library assuming there is no preliminary input validation by the higher-level application.
A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Projects Service download endpoint shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. An authenticated user can supply a crafted path parameter that bypasses validation, allowing arbitrary files (including entire directories returned as archives) to be read from the server filesystem. Because the readable files include service configuration and credential material, exploitation can be used to gather information enabling further compromise. The issue can be combined with CVE-2026-11424 to reach the cloud-side endpoint. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, the readable configuration could have exposed credentials shared across services. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.
A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Git Service component shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. The service accepts a sequence of post-clone file-manipulation operations that use user-supplied paths without validation, allowing an authenticated user with basic git access to move arbitrary files outside the intended repository area. This file-move primitive can be used to place attacker-controlled script content into directories where it is later executed by the service, resulting in remote code execution under the Git Service account. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, this could have allowed access to data belonging to other tenants on the same infrastructure node. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.