Comparison Overview

Club Med

VS

Marriott Hotels

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

Marriott Hotels

10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, 20817, US
Last Update: 2026-01-16

With over 500 properties worldwide, Marriott Hotels has reimagined hospitality to exceed the expectations of business, group, and leisure travelers. Marriott Hotels, Marriott’s flagship brand of quality-tier, full-service hotels and resorts, provides consistent, dependable and genuinely caring experiences to guests on their terms. Marriott is a brilliant host to guests who effortlessly blend life and work, and who are inspired by how modern travel enhances them both. Our hotels offer warm, professional service; sophisticated yet functional guest room design; lobby spaces that facilitate working, dining and socializing; restaurants and bars serving international cuisine prepared simply and from the freshest ingredients; meeting and event spaces and services that are gold standard; and expansive, 24-hour fitness facilities.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 42,337
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marriott_hotels_resorts.jpeg
Marriott Hotels
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
Club Med
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Marriott Hotels
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Club Med in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marriott Hotels in 2026.

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

Club Med cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Marriott Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marriott Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/club-med.jpeg
Club Med
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marriott_hotels_resorts.jpeg
Marriott Hotels
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

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

Neither Marriott Hotels company nor Club Med company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Marriott Hotels company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Club Med company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Marriott Hotels company nor Club Med company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Club Med company nor Marriott Hotels company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Club Med nor Marriott Hotels holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Club Med company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Marriott Hotels company.

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

Neither Club Med nor Marriott Hotels holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Club Med nor Marriott Hotels holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Club Med nor Marriott Hotels holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Club Med nor Marriott Hotels holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Club Med nor Marriott Hotels holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Club Med nor Marriott Hotels 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