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

Comparison Overview

East Midlands AirportEast Midlands Airport
VS
EmiratesEmirates
East Midlands Airport

East Midlands Airport

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, GB

Last Update: 29/12/2025

View Profile
752/1000Fair

East Midlands Airport connects over 4.2 million passengers with the world, serving more than 90 destinations. Winner of many prestigious awards including the World’s Leading Eco Friendly Airport and voted Best Regional Airport at the British Travel Award in 2010, our a...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:225
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Emirates

Emirates

Dubai, Dubai, 686, AE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.emirates.com
826/1000Good

Based in Dubai, the Emirates Group employs over 120,000 staff from more than 170 nationalities. The Emirates Group’s extensive and diverse international portfolio includes the world’s largest international airline, Emirates, and one of the largest combined air services ...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:68,772
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
East Midlands Airport

East Midlands Airport

-
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
Emirates

Emirates

-
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 East Midlands Airport in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Emirates in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - East Midlands Airport (X = Date, Y = Severity)

East Midlands Airport 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 - Emirates (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Emirates 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...
East Midlands Airport

East Midlands Airport

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Emirates

Emirates

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2