Comparison Overview

China Southern Airlines

VS

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

China Southern Airlines

181 Huanshi West Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, CN
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799

China Southern Airlines Official Account

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 5,840
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, None, Amstelveen, None, NL, 1182 GP
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 700 and 749

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to major cities and economic centres all over the world. Through our LinkedIn account, we make sure you are kept up-to-date about KLM and other developments in the air transport industry.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 22,391
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-southern-airlines.jpeg
China Southern Airlines
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/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
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
China Southern Airlines
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Southern Airlines in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has 61.29% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — China Southern Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Southern Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-southern-airlines.jpeg
China Southern Airlines
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: AI-Amplified Social Engineering, Third-Party Customer Service Platform Exploitation, Voice Cloning, Deepfake Impersonation
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Identity Theft, Loyalty Program Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party system compromise
Motivation: Potential misuse in targeted scams
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

China Southern Airlines company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas China Southern Airlines company has not reported any.

In the current year, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported more cyber incidents than China Southern Airlines company.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company nor China Southern Airlines company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has disclosed at least one data breach, while China Southern Airlines company has not reported such incidents publicly.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while China Southern Airlines company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither China Southern Airlines company nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither China Southern Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to China Southern Airlines company.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company employs more people globally than China Southern Airlines company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither China Southern Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither China Southern Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither China Southern Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither China Southern Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither China Southern Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds HIPAA certification.

Neither China Southern Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N