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

Comparison Overview

COMO Uma CangguCOMO Uma Canggu
VS
Kempinski HotelsKempinski Hotels
COMO Uma Canggu

COMO Uma Canggu

Jalan Pantai Batu Mejan, Echo Beach, Canggu, Denpasar, Bali 80361, ID

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile

On Bali’s south coast, rolling waves break in alluring curls. The mood is carefree, with yoga on the beach and local children watching their heroes glide towards them on the froth and spume. COMO Uma Canggu overlooks this scene, with panoramic Indian Ocean views. While ...

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

Kempinski Hotels

Maximilianstrasse 17, Munich, 80539, DE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://kempinski.com/
806/1000Good

Founded in Germany in 1897, Kempinski Hotels has long reflected the finest traditions of European hospitality. Today, as ever, Kempinski is synonymous with distinctive luxury. Located in many of the world's most well-known cities and resorts, the Kempinski collection i...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:13,489
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
COMO Uma Canggu

COMO Uma Canggu

-
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
Kempinski Hotels

Kempinski Hotels

-
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 Uma Canggu in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kempinski Hotels in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - COMO Uma Canggu (X = Date, Y = Severity)

COMO Uma Canggu 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 - Kempinski Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kempinski Hotels 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 Uma Canggu

COMO Uma Canggu

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Kempinski Hotels

Kempinski Hotels

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9