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

Comparison Overview

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & RoboticsAmazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics
VS
Booking.comBooking.com
Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

300 Riverpark Drive, North Reading, MA, US, 01864

Last Update: 23/09/2026

View Profile
779/1000Fair

On the Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics Team, we build dynamic partnerships between people and intelligent machines. This intricate collaboration helps Amazon fulfill orders with unmatched accuracy. Since we began working with robotics, we've added over a million new...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:16,936
Subsidiaries:88
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Booking.com

Booking.com

Oosterdokskade 163, Amsterdam, North Holland, NL, 1011 DL

Last Update: 05/10/2026

View Profile
403/1000Critical

A career at Booking.com is all about the journey, helping you explore new challenges in a place where you can be your best self. With plenty of exciting twists, turns and opportunities along the way. We’ve always been pioneers, on a mission to shape the future of trav...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:17,313
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
5
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

-
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
Booking.com

Booking.com

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Booking.com has 390.2% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Booking.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Booking.com 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...
Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Booking.com

Booking.com

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GOOPAYMASBOOAIR1791211015
🔒 Incident : Breach
AGOBOO1776904233
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOO1776206403

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3