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

Comparison Overview

Aloft HotelsAloft Hotels
VS
Marriott InternationalMarriott International
Aloft Hotels

Aloft Hotels

10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, Maryland, 20817, US

Last Update: 25/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://alofthotels.com
783/1000Fair

Aloft hotels are always popping up in the most unexpected places, lighting cities all over the world with a social spark. Each of the 100+ Aloft hotels is ultra unique, but all share a sense of excitement that leaves guests amazed and abuzz. Aloft® is designed for th...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:2,925
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Marriott International

Marriott International

10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, MD, US, 20817

Last Update: 03/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.marriott.com
712/1000Moderate

Marriott International, Inc. is based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, and encompasses a portfolio of approximately 9,000 properties across more than 30 leading brands in 141 countries and territories. Its heritage can be traced to a root beer stand opened in Washington, D....

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:213,175
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Aloft Hotels

Aloft Hotels

-
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
Marriott International

Marriott International

-
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 Aloft Hotels in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

Marriott International has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Aloft Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aloft Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Marriott International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marriott International 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...
Aloft Hotels

Aloft Hotels

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Marriott International

Marriott International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHEGAS1776335039
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR0802208101125
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR13023722

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-10681
SUMMARY

In Zephyr's userspace dynamic-objects subsystem, thread_idx_alloc() in kernel/userspace/userspace.c allocated a new thread permission index from the global _thread_idx_map[] bitmap without holding lists_lock. On SMP systems, two user-mode threads invoking the k_object_alloc(K_OBJ_THREAD) syscall concurrently can both observe the same low free bit, perform the same non-atomic RMW to clear it, and return the identical tidx. The two newly created K_OBJ_THREAD objects are then assigned the same thread_id, so the two user threads alias a single bit position in every kernel object's perms[] bitfield: any subsequent grant of access on a kernel object to one thread is implicitly a grant to the other, defeating userspace ACL isolation. A secondary lost-update window between the unlocked &=~BIT() in alloc and the locked |= BIT() in thread_idx_free() can also leak entries from the thread-index pool. The defect is reachable from any user-mode thread via the unrestricted __syscall k_object_alloc and is gated on CONFIG_USERSPACE, CONFIG_DYNAMIC_OBJECTS, and CONFIG_SMP. The flaw was introduced when the per-thread permission index was added in 2018 and is present in every release up to and including v4.4.0. Fixed by holding lists_lock across the bitmap RMW and the permissions clear (and inlining the obj_list traversal that previously took the lock itself).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-66013
SUMMARY

OpenRemote before 1.26.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the console registration API that allows unauthenticated attackers to update existing console assets by supplying a known asset identifier. Attackers can overwrite push notification tokens and console metadata without authentication or ownership validation, redirecting notifications or denying delivery to legitimate consoles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-66012
SUMMARY

SiYuan before v3.7.2 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the POST /mcp kernel endpoint, which is gated only by a general auth check (model.CheckAuth) with no admin-role or read-only enforcement. This exposes 31 MCP tools, including a file tool with list/read/write/delete/rename/copy actions across the entire workspace. When the Publish server is enabled in anonymous mode (Conf.Publish.Enable=true and Conf.Publish.Auth.Enable=false), the Publish reverse proxy attaches an anonymous RoleReader JWT to proxied requests, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to reach /mcp. The attacker can read conf/conf.json to extract accessAuthCode, api.token, and cookieKey in plaintext, write arbitrary files in the workspace, and plant a plugin into data/plugins/ that executes with nodeIntegration:true and no contextIsolation on the next desktop launch, leading to administrator takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66011
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-27 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the magick command-line interface when invalid options are provided. Attackers can trigger memory exhaustion by repeatedly supplying malformed command-line arguments to consume system resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-64529
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: qat - remove unused character device and IOCTLs The QAT driver exposes a character device (qat_adf_ctl) with IOCTLs for device configuration, start, stop, status query and enumeration. These IOCTLs are not part of any public uAPI header and have no known in-tree or out-of-tree users. Device lifecycle is already managed via sysfs. The ioctl interface also increases the attack surface and is the subject of a number of bug reports. Remove the character device, the IOCTL definitions, and the related data structures (adf_dev_status_info, adf_user_cfg_key_val, adf_user_cfg_section, adf_user_cfg_ctl_data). Drop the now-unused adf_cfg_user.h header and strip adf_ctl_drv.c down to the minimal module_init/module_exit hooks for workqueue, AER, and crypto/compression algorithm registration. Clean up leftover dead code that was only reachable from the removed IOCTL paths: adf_cfg_del_all(), adf_devmgr_verify_id(), adf_devmgr_get_num_dev(), adf_devmgr_get_dev_by_id(), adf_get_vf_real_id() and the unused ADF_CFG macros. Additionally, drop the entry associated to QAT IOCTLs in ioctl-number.rst.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA