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

Comparison Overview

1 Hotel Melbourne1 Hotel Melbourne
VS
DoubleTree by HiltonDoubleTree by Hilton
1 Hotel Melbourne

1 Hotel Melbourne

9 Maritime Place, Melbourne, 3008, AU

Last Update: 14/04/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

Welcome to your Melbourne retreat, where the essence of the city's natural beauty and vibrant heritage converges on the serene banks of the Yarra River. Just like the river winds its way through this wonderful city, our commitment to sustainability and reverence for the...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
DoubleTree by Hilton

DoubleTree by Hilton

7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.doubletree.com
797/1000Fair

DoubleTree by Hilton hotels are distinctively designed properties that provide true comfort to today’s business and leisure travelers. From the millions of delighted hotel guests who are welcomed with the brand’s legendary, warm chocolate chip cookies at check-in to the...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:15,542
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
1 Hotel Melbourne

1 Hotel Melbourne

-
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
DoubleTree by Hilton

DoubleTree by Hilton

-
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 Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 1 Hotel Melbourne in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DoubleTree by Hilton in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 1 Hotel Melbourne (X = Date, Y = Severity)

1 Hotel Melbourne cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - DoubleTree by Hilton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DoubleTree by Hilton 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...
1 Hotel Melbourne

1 Hotel Melbourne

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
DoubleTree by Hilton

DoubleTree by Hilton

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA