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

Comparison Overview

Van Cleef & ArpelsVan Cleef & Arpels
VS
RichemontRichemont
Van Cleef & Arpels

Van Cleef & Arpels

75001, Place Vendôme, Paris, Île-de-France, 75001, FR

Last Update: 21/01/2026

View Profile
783/1000Fair

Van Cleef & Arpels was born in Paris’ place Vendôme in 1906, following Alfred Van Cleef’s marriage to Estelle Arpels in 1895. For over a century, their names have graced some of the finest High Jewelry ever created. Over the years, the Maison has remained faithful to a...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:3,476
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Richemont

Richemont

Chemin de la Chênaie 50, Bellevue, Geneva, CH, 1293

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.richemont.com/
837/1000Good

At Richemont, we craft the future. Our unique portfolio includes prestigious Maisons distinguished by their craftsmanship and creativity. Richemont’s ambition is to nurture its Maisons and businesses and enable them to grow and prosper in a responsible, sustainable mann...

NAICS:4483
NAICS Definition:Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores
Employees:30,756
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Van Cleef & Arpels

Van Cleef & Arpels

-
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
Richemont

Richemont

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Van Cleef & Arpels in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Richemont in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Van Cleef & Arpels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Van Cleef & Arpels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Richemont 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...
Van Cleef & Arpels

Van Cleef & Arpels

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Richemont

Richemont

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105222
SUMMARY

The alexpechkarev/google-maps Laravel package through 12.16 disables TLS certificate verification by default because the bundled config sets ssl_verify_peer to FALSE, which is passed to CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER. On-path attackers can present any certificate to intercept Google Maps web-service requests, steal the API key from the query string, and tamper with responses.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105221
SUMMARY

The gist RubyGem before 6.1.0 contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability that allows on-path attackers to intercept HTTPS traffic because http_connection in lib/gist.rb sets VERIFY_NONE. Attackers can present any certificate to read or modify GitHub API traffic, stealing OAuth tokens and login credentials to read and modify the victim's gists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105220
SUMMARY

Twine 2 desktop through 2.12.0 contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability in importStories() that executes markup from imported story files in the editor window. Attackers can craft a story file whose script calls the twineElectron openWithScratchFile IPC bridge to write and open a .bat file, executing code as the user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-105167
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file admin/donate.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument location can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105166
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The affected element is the function insert of the file fooddonateform.php of the component Food Donation Form. Performing a manipulation of the argument image-choice results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9