Comparison Overview

Aeropuertos GAP

VS

Etihad

Aeropuertos GAP

Avenida Mariano Otero No. 1249-B Piso 6, Torre Pacífico, Rinconada del Bosque, , None, Guadalajara, , Jalisco , MX, C.P. 44530
Last Update: 2025-12-12

Somos una empresa mexicana que desarrolla su actividad en el sector aeroportuario. Operamos 12 aeropuertos internacionales en México y 2 en Jamaica, sirviendo en conjunto a más de 350 destinos, a través de 37 aerolíneas. En 2022, atendimos a 56.7 millones de pasajeros. Creemos en el valor de cada individuo y buscamos detonar su potencial por medio de la Fundación GAP integrada por los Colegios GAP y los Centros Comunitarios de Formación que ofrecen educación de calidad a familias de bajos recursos y oportunidades para elevar la calidad de vida a la comunidad aeroportuaria.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 782
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Etihad

P.O. Box 35566, New Airport Road, Khalifa City A, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, AE, 35566
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Marhaba! Welcome to Etihad Airways. We are proud to be the national airline of the UAE, flying to 100+ destinations via Abu Dhabi. At Etihad, we don't stop at the border of what's possible, we go beyond it. Proudly inspired by our Emirati identity, we are dedicated to delivering extraordinary travel experiences, helping our guests realise their ambitions. Our journey started in 2003. Since then, we have proudly helped millions of guests travel the globe. We are honoured to have had over 12 million valued members join our Etihad Guest loyalty programme. Diversity is key in driving us forward. At 12,000+ employees representing 140+ nationalities, our team comes together to deliver exceptional experiences at every stage of the journey. If you share our spirit of ambition and would like to reach new heights, visit https://careers.etihad.com/

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 13,927
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aeropuertosgap.jpeg
Aeropuertos GAP
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/etihadairways.jpeg
Etihad
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
Aeropuertos GAP
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Etihad
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aeropuertos GAP in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

Etihad has 61.29% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Aeropuertos GAP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aeropuertos GAP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Etihad cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aeropuertosgap.jpeg
Aeropuertos GAP
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/etihadairways.jpeg
Etihad
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Etihad company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Aeropuertos GAP company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Etihad company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Aeropuertos GAP company has not reported any.

In the current year, Etihad company has reported more cyber incidents than Aeropuertos GAP company.

Neither Etihad company nor Aeropuertos GAP company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Etihad company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Aeropuertos GAP company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Etihad company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Aeropuertos GAP company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP company nor Etihad company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP nor Etihad holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Etihad company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Aeropuertos GAP company.

Etihad company employs more people globally than Aeropuertos GAP company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP nor Etihad holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP nor Etihad holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP nor Etihad holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP nor Etihad holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP nor Etihad holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aeropuertos GAP nor Etihad 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.

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
Description

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

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
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."

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
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.

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
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).

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