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

Comparison Overview

COMO Metropolitan LondonCOMO Metropolitan London
VS
DoubleTree by HiltonDoubleTree by Hilton
COMO Metropolitan London

COMO Metropolitan London

Old Park Lane, London, W1K 1LB, GB

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
773/1000Fair

COMO Metropolitan London combines contemporary design, a vibrant Park Lane location and expert staff. Japanese-Peruvian restaurant Nobu features award-winning cuisine situated on the first floor of the property. COMO Shambhala Urban Escape offers holistic therapies, yog...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:105
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
DoubleTree by Hilton

DoubleTree by Hilton

7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, US

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.doubletree.com
797/1000Fair

DoubleTree by Hilton hotels are distinctively designed properties that provide true comfort to today’s business and leisure travelers. From the millions of delighted hotel guests who are welcomed with the brand’s legendary, warm chocolate chip cookies at check-in to the...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:15,542
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
COMO Metropolitan London

COMO Metropolitan London

-
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
DoubleTree by Hilton

DoubleTree by Hilton

-
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 Metropolitan London in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DoubleTree by Hilton in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - COMO Metropolitan London (X = Date, Y = Severity)

COMO Metropolitan London 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 - DoubleTree by Hilton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DoubleTree by Hilton 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...
COMO Metropolitan London

COMO Metropolitan London

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
DoubleTree by Hilton

DoubleTree by Hilton

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-102335
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 fails to restrict the advanced_config field to administrators, allowing non-admin users with manage permissions to inject arbitrary nginx directives. Attackers can inject malicious nginx configuration such as alias directives to serve arbitrary files or control routing for their assigned hosts.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102334
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 lacks rate-limiting on authentication endpoints, allowing unauthenticated attackers to make unlimited password guesses against any account. Attackers can brute-force login credentials via POST /api/tokens and subsequently guess TOTP codes via POST /api/tokens/2fa to gain full session access and administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-102333
SUMMARY

httpdbg before 2.2.1 fails to validate URL schemes in recorded HTTP request URLs rendered as clickable links in the web interface. Attackers controlling traffic recorded by httpdbg can supply javascript: scheme URLs that execute malicious scripts in the application origin when clicked, allowing access to captured request and response data including headers and tokens.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102332
SUMMARY

Dozzle versions before 11.1.2 fail to sanitize container display names when building ZIP archive entry names in the log download endpoint. Attackers who can label containers can use path traversal sequences to write files outside the extraction directory when users download and extract logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:N/E:X/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-101262
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Ziroom ZHOME A0101 1.0.1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /api/ZRQos/set_online_client. The manipulation of the argument ip leads to command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3