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

Comparison Overview

TOM FORDTOM FORD
VS
MANGOMANGO
TOM FORD

TOM FORD

N/A

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://tomford.com
765/1000Fair

TOM FORD IS A GLOBAL LUXURY HOUSE OFFERING EXCEPTIONAL WOMEN’S AND MEN’S FASHION, ACCESSORIES, EYEWEAR AND BEAUTY. FOUNDED IN 2005 BY TOM FORD, THE BRAND HAS A PRESENCE IN MORE THAN 100 MARKETS GLOBALLY, AND IS KNOWN FOR IMMACULATE TAILORING, MODERN SENSUALITY AND REFIN...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:230
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MANGO

MANGO

Mercaders 9-11, Palau Solità i Plegamans, 08184, ES

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://jobs.mango.com/
755/1000Fair

Mango, one of the leading international fashion groups, is a global company with design and creativity at the heart of its business model and a strategy based on constant innovation, the pursuit of sustainability and a complete ecosystem of channels and partners. With ...

NAICS:448
NAICS Definition:Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Employees:16,012
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TOM FORD

TOM FORD

-
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
MANGO

MANGO

-
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 TOM FORD in 2026.

Incidents

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

MANGO has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - TOM FORD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TOM FORD cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

MANGO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
TOM FORD

TOM FORD

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MANGO

MANGO

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ZAR1778228840
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAN2192421101625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2