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

Comparison Overview

Center ParcsCenter Parcs
VS
BCD TravelBCD Travel
Center Parcs

Center Parcs

L'Artois - Espace Pont de Flandre, Paris Cedex 19, 75947, FR

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
748/1000Moderate

At Center Parcs Europe, we are reinventing tourism to offer unique experiences in the heart of nature. With our 29 parks and 4 head offices across Europe, we are dedicated to reconnecting our guests with nature and themselves, while leaving a positive impact on the envi...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:4,484
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
BCD Travel

BCD Travel

Europalaan 300, Utrecht, NL, 3526 KS

Last Update: 15/10/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bcdtravel.com
726/1000Moderate

BCD Travel helps companies travel smart and achieve more. We drive program adoption, cost savings and talent retention through digital experiences that simplify business travel. Our 15,000+ dedicated team members service clients in 170+ countries as we shape a sustainab...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:16,649
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Center Parcs

Center Parcs

-
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
BCD Travel

BCD Travel

-
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 Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Center Parcs in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

BCD Travel has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Center Parcs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Center Parcs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - BCD Travel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BCD Travel 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...
Center Parcs

Center Parcs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CEN302061625
BCD Travel

BCD Travel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BCD1780576089
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
BCD528072625

FAQ

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