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

Comparison Overview

BGS (Baltic Ground Services)BGS (Baltic Ground Services)
VS
QantasQantas
BGS (Baltic Ground Services)

BGS (Baltic Ground Services)

Rodūnios kl. 6, Vilnius, LT-02187, LT

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bgs.aero
752/1000Fair

Baltic Ground Services (BGS) is a trusted provider of comprehensive aviation support services, operating across 10 airports in 5 countries throughout Europe. As part of Avia Solutions Group, the world’s largest ACMI provider, we bring decades of experience and innovatio...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:157
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Qantas

Qantas

10 Bourke Road, Mascot, 2020, AU

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.qantas.com
100/1000Critical

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...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:17,844
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BGS (Baltic Ground Services)

BGS (Baltic Ground Services)

-
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
Qantas

Qantas

-
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 BGS (Baltic Ground Services) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Qantas in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - BGS (Baltic Ground Services) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BGS (Baltic Ground Services) 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 - Qantas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Qantas 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...
BGS (Baltic Ground Services)

BGS (Baltic Ground Services)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Qantas

Qantas

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
QAN2902229100425
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAWQANMGM1771230438
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
QAN0192201101325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2