Comparison Overview

Caesars Entertainment

VS

Club Med

Caesars Entertainment

One Caesars Palace Drive, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89109
Last Update: 2026-01-16

Caesars Entertainment, Inc. is the largest casino-entertainment Company in the U.S. and one of the world's most diversified casino-entertainment providers. Since its beginning in Reno, NV, in 1937, Caesars Entertainment, Inc. has grown through development of new resorts, expansions and acquisitions. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.'s resorts operate primarily under the Caesars®, Harrah's®, Horseshoe®, and Eldorado® brand names. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. offers diversified gaming, entertainment and hospitality amenities, one-of-a-kind destinations, and a full suite of mobile and online gaming and sports betting experiences. All tied to its industry-leading Caesars Rewards loyalty program, the Company focuses on building value with its guests through a unique combination of impeccable service, operational excellence and technology leadership. Caesars is committed to its employees, suppliers, communities and the environment through its PEOPLE PLANET PLAY framework. 21+Gambling Problem? 21+ to gamble. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-522-4700 or text 800GAM. For more information, please visit. www.caesars.com/corporate. Caesars Entertainment promotes a collaborative culture where accountability, passion, and idea sharing create a foundation for innovation and continuous improvement in the casino entertainment industry. Caesars is always looking for intellectually-curious professionals who are aligned with our values, motivated by meritocracy, and inspired by our commitment to our guests, team members, communities, and environment. Learn what it’s like to join a diverse by design team at Caesars Entertainment and check out our open jobs.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 18,062
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Club Med

Paris, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Since it was founded in 1950 and it created the all-inclusive vacation concept, Club Med has been the world leader on its market, and has developed a resolutely upscale, friendly and multicultural spirit. Club Med boasts 70 resorts located in the most beautiful sites in the world, a cruise ship and Luxury Villas & Chalets and, now more than ever, is associated with dreams and happiness. There are 20,000 Gentle Organizers (G.Os) and Gentle Employees (G.Es) at Club Med, who work in the villages, but also at the Paris, Lyon, Singapore, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro and Miami headquarters, in the sales offices situated in dozens of countries and in travel agencies.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 13,203
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/caesars-entertainment-inc.jpeg
Caesars Entertainment
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/club-med.jpeg
Club Med
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
Caesars Entertainment
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Club Med
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Caesars Entertainment in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Club Med in 2026.

Incident History — Caesars Entertainment (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Caesars Entertainment cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Club Med (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Club Med cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/caesars-entertainment-inc.jpeg
Caesars Entertainment
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Social Engineering
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Attack on IT support vendor
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party IT vendor breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/club-med.jpeg
Club Med
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Club Med company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Caesars Entertainment company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Caesars Entertainment company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Club Med company has not reported any.

In the current year, Club Med company and Caesars Entertainment company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Club Med company nor Caesars Entertainment company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Caesars Entertainment company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Club Med company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Caesars Entertainment company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Club Med company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Caesars Entertainment company nor Club Med company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Caesars Entertainment nor Club Med holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Club Med company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Caesars Entertainment company.

Caesars Entertainment company employs more people globally than Club Med company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Caesars Entertainment nor Club Med holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Caesars Entertainment nor Club Med holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Caesars Entertainment nor Club Med holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Caesars Entertainment nor Club Med holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Caesars Entertainment nor Club Med holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Caesars Entertainment nor Club Med 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