Comparison Overview

Aena

VS

Cathay Pacific

Aena

Peonías, Madrid, 28043, ES
Last Update: 2025-12-10
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.aena.es/

Canal oficial de Aena, primer operador aeroportuario del mundo: 46 aeropuertos y 2 helipuertos en España más la gestión de otros 16 internacionales. Aena es una empresa líder por su experiencia, capacidad y equipo profesional en la gestión de servicios aeroportuarios. Ofrecemos a nuestros clientes y usuarios un servicio integral eficiente y de la máxima calidad para hacer de su paso por los aeropuertos una experiencia placentera. Los aeropuertos de la red de Aena son modernos y funcionales. Disponen de las últimas tecnologías diseñadas para facilitar a los pasajeros su estancia en el aeropuerto y de una variada oferta de servicios comerciales y restauración de la máxima calidad. Y están pensados para todos, con accesibilidad plena y un cuidado servicio de atención a las personas con movilidad reducida. Aena es una empresa responsable, consciente de que debe desempeñar su papel como motor económico en las áreas de influencia de los aeropuertos con un compromiso permanente de desarrollo y sostenibilidad.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 5,146
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Cathay Pacific

Cathay City, Chek Lap Kok, undefined, undefined, HK
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cathaypacific.com

Welcome to the official Cathay Pacific LinkedIn page. We have over 200 destinations in our global network, but want to do more than just move you from A to B. We want to take you further in your journey, and ultimately, to move beyond. And we’re here to do what we can to help you discover what’s next. For flight and other inquiries, please contact us via WhatsApp (+852 2747 2747) and Facebook.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 13,834
Subsidiaries: 18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aena.jpeg
Aena
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cathay-pacific-airways.jpeg
Cathay Pacific
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Aena
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cathay Pacific
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aena in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cathay Pacific in 2025.

Incident History — Aena (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aena cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cathay Pacific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cathay Pacific cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aena.jpeg
Aena
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cathay-pacific-airways.jpeg
Cathay Pacific
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Aena company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cathay Pacific company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Cathay Pacific company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Aena company.

In the current year, Cathay Pacific company and Aena company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor Aena company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor Aena company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor Aena company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Aena company nor Cathay Pacific company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aena nor Cathay Pacific holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cathay Pacific company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Aena company.

Cathay Pacific company employs more people globally than Aena company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither Aena nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aena nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aena nor Cathay Pacific holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aena nor Cathay Pacific holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aena nor Cathay Pacific holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aena nor Cathay Pacific holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References