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

Comparison Overview

Tiffany & Co.Tiffany & Co.
VS
SWAROVSKISWAROVSKI
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

727 5th Ave, New York, 10022, US

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.tiffany.com
521/1000Critical

In 1837 Charles Lewis Tiffany founded his company in New York City where his store was soon acclaimed as the palace of jewels for its exceptional gemstones. Since then TIFFANY & CO. has become synonymous with elegance, innovative design, fine craftsmanship and creative ...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:10,681
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
SWAROVSKI

SWAROVSKI

Alte Landstrasse, 411, Männedorf, CH, 8708

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

Masters of Light Since 1895 Swarovski creates beautiful products of impeccable quality and craftsmanship that bring joy and celebrate individuality. Founded in 1895 in Austria, the company designs, manufactures, and sells the world's finest crystals, Swarovski Created ...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:11,004
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

-
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
SWAROVSKI

SWAROVSKI

-
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 Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)

Tiffany & Co. has 37.5% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SWAROVSKI in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Tiffany & Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tiffany & Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

SWAROVSKI 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...
Tiffany & Co.

Tiffany & Co.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIFLVMCHR1770865579
🔒 Incident : Breach
TIF5392553091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOUPARVOLTIFJAP1770908674
SWAROVSKI

SWAROVSKI

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8