Comparison Overview

Country Garden Group

VS

Emaar

Country Garden Group

345 Nathan Rd, Yau Tsim Mong, HK
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Forbes 500 500 Projects Globally Top 10 Real Estate Company in China Over the past 20 years, Country Garden has been a practitioner in China's urbanization, bringing modernization to landscape and improving the quality of people's lives. Besides Mainland China, Country Garden has also been actively expanding overseas markets since 2012, including Malaysia, Australia, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Russia, Vietnam, Britain, US and other countries. Pairing your unique skills with our global resources and expertise, Country Garden will give you the career you desire. For more information: http://www.bgy.com.cn/china/index.aspx

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 15,680
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Emaar

Emaar Square Downtown Dubai, Dubai, 9440, AE
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

WHO WE ARE Emaar is a pioneer of master-planned communities in Dubai since its inception in 1997. It is listed on the Dubai Financial Market as a public joint-stock company. Building upon the legacy of our flagship Downtown Dubai creations — the iconic Burj Khalifa, Dubai Mall, and Dubai Fountain — our dream is to be the world’s most valuable and trusted company, to enrich lives and to be powered by the best people. With proven competencies in properties, shopping malls & retail and hospitality & leisure, we shape new lifestyles with a passion for design excellence, build with quality and timely delivery. EXPANSION & DIVERSIFICATION Reflecting the pulse of Dubai, our portfolio encompasses developing renowned hospitality & leisure projects, premium shopping malls & Retail assets, as well as Master-Planned Communities and iconic Real-Estate assets. Our hospitality & leisure portfolio includes Address Hotels & Resorts and Armani Hotels & Resorts, among others. We are also the developers of premium shopping malls and retail assets such as the flagship The Dubai Mall – the world’s most visited retail & entertainment venue, Dubai Marina Mall and Souk-al-Bahar. Further, we continuously define the standard for exceptional cultural, entertainment and leisure experiences with destinations such as Dubai Opera, Dubai Aquarium & Underwater Zoo, Reel Cinemas, Dubai Ice Rink and VR Park.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 15,912
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/country-garden-holding-co--ltd-.jpeg
Country Garden Group
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/emaar-properties.jpeg
Emaar
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
Country Garden Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Emaar
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Country Garden Group in 2026.

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Emaar in 2026.

Incident History — Country Garden Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Country Garden Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Emaar (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Emaar cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/country-garden-holding-co--ltd-.jpeg
Country Garden Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/emaar-properties.jpeg
Emaar
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Emaar company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Country Garden Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Emaar company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Country Garden Group company.

In the current year, Emaar company and Country Garden Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Emaar company nor Country Garden Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Emaar company nor Country Garden Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Emaar company nor Country Garden Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Country Garden Group company nor Emaar company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Country Garden Group nor Emaar holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Emaar company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Country Garden Group company.

Emaar company employs more people globally than Country Garden Group company, reflecting its scale as a Real Estate.

Neither Country Garden Group nor Emaar holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Country Garden Group nor Emaar holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Country Garden Group nor Emaar holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Country Garden Group nor Emaar holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Country Garden Group nor Emaar holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Country Garden Group nor Emaar 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