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

Comparison Overview

DHL Air (Austria) GmbHDHL Air (Austria) GmbH
VS
KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesKLM Royal Dutch Airlines
DHL Air (Austria) GmbH

DHL Air (Austria) GmbH

Office Park 4, Flughafen-Wien, 1300, AT

Last Update: 20/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.dhl.com
752/1000Fair

Founded in 2021, DHL Air Austria is a 100% subsidiary of DHL Group and part of the division DHL Express. Together with European Air Transport (EAT), DHL Air Austria covers most of the European DHL network with a fleet of 19 Boeing 757 and 4 Boeing 767. Want to join us ...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:181
Subsidiaries:56
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, Amstelveen, 1182 GP, NL

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://klmf.ly/R05uLo
731/1000Moderate

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:22,827
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DHL Air (Austria) GmbH

DHL Air (Austria) GmbH

-
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
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

-
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 Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DHL Air (Austria) GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DHL Air (Austria) GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DHL Air (Austria) GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 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...
DHL Air (Austria) GmbH

DHL Air (Austria) GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM304080925
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM2289123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA