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

Comparison Overview

COMO Point Yamu, PhuketCOMO Point Yamu, Phuket
VS
ITC Hotels LimitedITC Hotels Limited
COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

225 Moo 7, Paklok, Talang, Phuket 83110, TH

Last Update: 01/11/2025

View Profile

Our Phuket resort, with some of COMO's most striking pool villas, sits on the tip of Cape Yamu, giving magnificent views of Phang Nga Bay. The playful interiors are by Paola Navone — a tour-de-force in modern, location-sensitive design on an island imbued with a rich Th...

NAICS:721
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Limited, Hotels Division - Headquarters, ITC Green Centre 10, Institutional Area Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana, IN, 122001

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
806/1000Good

Established in 1975, ITC Hotels Limited has grown to encompass over 140+ hotels across 90+ destinations, solidifying its presence in the Indian subcontinent ITC Hotels seamlessly blends India’s rich tradition of hospitality with globally benchmarked services, offering ...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:12,682
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

-
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
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

-
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 Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for COMO Point Yamu, Phuket in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ITC Hotels Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - COMO Point Yamu, Phuket (X = Date, Y = Severity)

COMO Point Yamu, Phuket cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - ITC Hotels Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ITC Hotels Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA