Comparison Overview

Aramark

VS

Kempinski Hotels

Aramark

2400 Market St, Philadelphia, 19103, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

Aramark (NYSE: ARMK) proudly serves the world’s leading educational institutions, Fortune 500 companies, world champion sports teams, prominent healthcare providers, iconic destinations and cultural attractions, and numerous municipalities in 16 countries around the world with food and facilities management. Because of our hospitality culture, our employees strive to do great things for each other, our partners, our communities, and the planet.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 54,652
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Kempinski Hotels

Maximilianstrasse 17, Munich, 80539, DE
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

Founded in Germany in 1897, Kempinski Hotels has long reflected the finest traditions of European hospitality. Today, as ever, Kempinski is synonymous with distinctive luxury. Located in many of the world's most well-known cities and resorts, the Kempinski collection includes hotels in a grand manner, pace-setting modern establishments and older hotels of individual charm. All blend gracefully into their surroundings and offer luxurious accommodations, superb cuisine and unrivalled facilities - complemented by impeccable service. For leisure and business guests alike, the name Kempinski has long been synonymous with style, mobility and efficiency. Put simply, they are the first choice for the discerning individual. In addition to operating many of the finest city hotels in the world, Kempinski is a name that can now be found in many exciting resort locations, each combining local flair and ambience with the international standards of service and luxury that Kempinski guests have come to expect. To see all the different Kempinski jobs and apply, please go to https://careers.kempinski.com

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 13,489
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aramark.jpeg
Aramark
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/kempinski-hotels.jpeg
Kempinski Hotels
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
Aramark
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Kempinski Hotels
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aramark in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kempinski Hotels in 2026.

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

Aramark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Kempinski Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kempinski Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aramark.jpeg
Aramark
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kempinski-hotels.jpeg
Kempinski Hotels
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Kempinski Hotels company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Aramark company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Aramark company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Kempinski Hotels company has not reported any.

In the current year, Kempinski Hotels company and Aramark company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Kempinski Hotels company nor Aramark company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Aramark company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Kempinski Hotels company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Kempinski Hotels company nor Aramark company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Aramark company nor Kempinski Hotels company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aramark nor Kempinski Hotels holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Aramark company nor Kempinski Hotels company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Aramark company employs more people globally than Kempinski Hotels company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Aramark nor Kempinski Hotels holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aramark nor Kempinski Hotels holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aramark nor Kempinski Hotels holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aramark nor Kempinski Hotels holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aramark nor Kempinski Hotels holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aramark nor Kempinski Hotels holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N