Comparison Overview

Tempe Inditex

VS

MANGO

Tempe Inditex

Calle Severo Ochoa, Elche, Valencian Community, 03290, ES
Last Update: 2025-02-28 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

Tempe is the Inditex Group company that designs, markets and distributes the footwear and accessories sold by all their commercial brands. Zara, Pull&Bear, Massimo Dutti, Bershka, Stradivarius, Oysho, Zara Home and Lefties. Our priority is to adapt to the customer’s needs at all times, as this is the core of our philosophy. That’s why we work to offer attractive and sustainable fashion. We have a multicultural team of more than 2,000 people. What makes us different? Our creativity and motivation when it comes to imagining, developing and designing footwear and accessories. Not only in terms of fashion and trends, but also in terms of sustainability. Our offices are located in Elche (Alicante), one of the main footwear production centres in Spain. We have a presence in 96 markets worldwide and an online reach of more than 200 markets.

NAICS: 448
NAICS Definition: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees: 1,663
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

MANGO

Mercaders 9-11 Poligono Industrial Riera de Caldes Palau Solità i Plegamans, Barcelona 08184, ES
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

Mango, one of Europe’s leading fashion groups, is a global company with design, creativity and technology at the centre of its business model, and a strategy based on constant innovation and the search for sustainability. With its roots in Barcelona, one of the cradles of the textile industry, since it was founded in 1984, Mango has spent four decades looking to the future and inspiring the world with its passion for fashion and lifestyle. With the customer always its priority, the company bases its model on a unique fashion proposal focused on translating key fashion trends into its own language. At the El Hangar Design Centre, located at the company headquarters (Palau-solità i Plegamans, Barcelona), the company works on all areas related to creativity and every year creates over 18,000 garments and accessories. Present in more than 115 markets and with a network of close to 2,700 stores, Mango adapts to each country with a complete ecosystem of channels and international partners. The company closed 2023 with a turnover of 3.1 billion euros, with 33% of turnover coming from its online channel and with a workforce of more than 15,500 employees in all five continents. More information at www.mangofashiongroup.com

NAICS: 448
NAICS Definition: Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees: 10,001+
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tempe-inditex.jpeg
Tempe Inditex
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/mango.jpeg
MANGO
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
Tempe Inditex
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MANGO
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Tempe Inditex in 2025.

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

MANGO has 33.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Tempe Inditex (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tempe Inditex cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — MANGO (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MANGO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tempe-inditex.jpeg
Tempe Inditex
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mango.jpeg
MANGO
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: third-party vendor compromise, supply chain attack
Motivation: data theft, extortion, financial gain (potential ransom)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Tempe Inditex company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to MANGO company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

MANGO company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Tempe Inditex company has not reported any.

In the current year, MANGO company has reported more cyber incidents than Tempe Inditex company.

Neither MANGO company nor Tempe Inditex company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

MANGO company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Tempe Inditex company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither MANGO company nor Tempe Inditex company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Tempe Inditex company nor MANGO company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Tempe Inditex nor MANGO holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Tempe Inditex company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MANGO company.

Tempe Inditex company employs more people globally than MANGO company, reflecting its scale as a Retail Apparel and Fashion.

Neither Tempe Inditex nor MANGO holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tempe Inditex nor MANGO holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tempe Inditex nor MANGO holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tempe Inditex nor MANGO holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tempe Inditex nor MANGO holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tempe Inditex nor MANGO holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Deck Mate 2 lacks a verified secure-boot chain and runtime integrity validation for its controller and display modules. Without cryptographic boot verification, an attacker with physical access can modify or replace the bootloader, kernel, or filesystem and gain persistent code execution on reboot. This weakness allows long-term firmware tampering that survives power cycles. The vendor indicates that more recent firmware updates strengthen update-chain integrity and disable physical update ports to mitigate related attack avenues.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/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:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. In versions from 38.0.0 to before 38.0.3, the implementation of component-model related host-to-wasm trampolines in Wasmtime contained a bug where it's possible to carefully craft a component, which when called in a specific way, would crash the host with a segfault or assert failure. Wasmtime 38.0.3 has been released and is patched to fix this issue. There are no workarounds.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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