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

Comparison Overview

Address Hotels + ResortsAddress Hotels + Resorts
VS
HyattHyatt
Address Hotels + Resorts

Address Hotels + Resorts

Mohammed Bin Rashid Boulevard, Dubai, n/a, AE

Last Update: 06/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.addresshotels.com
786/1000Fair

Address Hotels + Resorts is a premium luxury lifestyle hotel and residence brand, located in the most sought-after locations across the region, including the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, and upcoming openings in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Address Hotels fusion of iconic experienc...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:2,260
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Hyatt

Hyatt

150 N Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL, US, 60606

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.hyatt.com
568/1000Very Poor

Hyatt is guided by its purpose: to care for people so they can be their best. Hyatt’s portfolio includes 1,000+ hotel and all-inclusive properties in over 75 countries across 6 continents. Hyatt’s offerings include brands in the Timeless Collection, including Park Hyatt...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:89,774
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Address Hotels + Resorts

Address Hotels + Resorts

-
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
Hyatt

Hyatt

-
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 Address Hotels + Resorts in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hyatt in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Address Hotels + Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Address Hotels + Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Hyatt 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...
Address Hotels + Resorts

Address Hotels + Resorts

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hyatt

Hyatt

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FOHNORHYAOMN1769001286
🔒 Incident : Breach
NORKFCFOHTACHYA1769001351
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
HYA1768842036

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8