Comparison Overview
AirAsia
AirAsia
AirAsia Berhad, RedQ, Jalan Pekeliling 5, KLIA2, Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, MY, 64000
Last Update: 01/04/2026
It all starts here. 23 years ago, a dream took flight - shaping and forever changing the travel industry in Asia. The idea was simple: Make flying affordable for everyone. We made that dream happen. We started an airline in 2001. Today, we’ve evolved to become somethi...
Qantas
10 Bourke Road, Mascot, 2020, AU
Last Update: 23/07/2026
We would like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the local lands and waterways on which we live, work and fly. We pay our respects to Elders past and present. Spirit is everything to us, and joining the Qantas team means bringing your spirit to ours. We have...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
AirAsia
Qantas
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)
AirAsia has 52.83% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)
Qantas has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - AirAsia (X = Date, Y = Severity)
AirAsia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Qantas (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Qantas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
AirAsia
Qantas
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.