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

Comparison Overview

Citrix ReadyCitrix Ready
VS
Booking.comBooking.com
Citrix Ready

Citrix Ready

4988 Great America Pkwy, Santa Clara, 95054, US

Last Update: 06/03/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

𝖢𝗂𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗑 𝖱𝖾𝖺𝖽𝗒 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗐𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝖻𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖾 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍 𝖢𝗂𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗑 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖼𝖾𝗌 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗇𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗒 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗌’ 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌, 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄𝗂𝗇...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Booking.com

Booking.com

Oosterdokskade 163, Amsterdam, North Holland, NL, 1011 DL

Last Update: 05/10/2026

View Profile
403/1000Critical

A career at Booking.com is all about the journey, helping you explore new challenges in a place where you can be your best self. With plenty of exciting twists, turns and opportunities along the way. We’ve always been pioneers, on a mission to shape the future of trav...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:17,313
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
5
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Citrix Ready

Citrix Ready

-
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.com

Booking.com

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Citrix Ready in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Booking.com has 395.05% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Citrix Ready (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Citrix Ready cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Booking.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Booking.com 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...
Citrix Ready

Citrix Ready

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Booking.com

Booking.com

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GOOPAYMASBOOAIR1791211015
🔒 Incident : Breach
AGOBOO1776904233
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOO1776206403

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2