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

Comparison Overview

BrandShelter DACHBrandShelter DACH
VS
Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)
BrandShelter DACH

BrandShelter DACH

Kaiserstraße 172-174, St.Ingbert, 66386 , DE

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
768/1000Fair

BrandShelter ist eine Marke der Brand Services der Team Internet Group PLC, einem der weltweit größten Domain-Management-Unternehmen. BrandShelter ist spezialisiert auf die Bereitstellung von Online-Markenschutzlösungen für Unternehmen und Markeninhaber. Neben dem Onli...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

800 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, 06854, US

Last Update: 24/06/2026

View Profile
758/1000Fair

Booking Holdings is the world’s leading provider of online travel & related services, provided to consumers and local partners in more than 220 countries and territories through six primary consumer-facing brands: Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda, Rentalcars.com, KAYAK and...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:17,812
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BrandShelter DACH

BrandShelter DACH

-
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 Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BrandShelter DACH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG) has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - BrandShelter DACH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BrandShelter DACH 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 - Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG) 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...
BrandShelter DACH

BrandShelter DACH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AGOBOO1776904233
🔒 Incident : Breach
ADOGOOMICEURBOO1776594302

FAQ

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