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

Comparison Overview

Aeropuertos GAPAeropuertos GAP
VS
Southwest AirlinesSouthwest Airlines
Aeropuertos GAP

Aeropuertos GAP

Avenida Mariano Otero No. 1249-B Piso 6, Torre Pacífico, Rinconada del Bosque, , Guadalajara, , Jalisco , MX, C.P. 44530

Last Update: 12/07/2026

View Profile
786/1000Fair

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....

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:853
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Southwest Airlines

Southwest Airlines

2702 Love Field Drive, Dallas, 75235, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.southwest.com
740/1000Moderate

At Southwest®, everything we do—from our smiling People to our policies—is designed to let you go with Heart. No matter what comes up in your travels, we’ve got your back. Because while any airline can fly you, only Southwest lets you go with Heart. Application fees do...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:39,673
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Aeropuertos GAP

Aeropuertos GAP

-
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
Southwest Airlines

Southwest Airlines

-
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 Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aeropuertos GAP in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Southwest Airlines in 2026.

Incidents

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

Aeropuertos GAP 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 - Southwest Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Southwest Airlines 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...
Aeropuertos GAP

Aeropuertos GAP

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Southwest Airlines

Southwest Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SOU351071725
🔒 Incident : Breach
SOU509072525

FAQ

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