Comparison Overview

easyJet

VS

Qantas

easyJet

Hangar 89, London Luton Airport, GB, LU2 9PF
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://careers.easyjet.com/

We’re on a mission to make low-cost travel easy. Whatever your role, you’ll connect millions of people to what they love using Europe’s best airline network, great value fares, and friendly service. And to help us get there we’ll give you everything you need to make a personal impact on our growing business. We believe in sharing new opportunities, stepping up to challenges, and supporting each other with our Orange Spirit. Get ready to make a difference. Make it easyJet.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 11,413
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Qantas

10 Bourke Road, None, Mascot, NSW, AU, 2020
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 0 and 549
https://www.qantas.com

We would like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the local lands and waterways on which we live, work and fly. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.   Spirit is everything to us, and joining the Qantas team means bringing your spirit to ours. We have over 26,000 exceptional employees, and every year we fly millions of customers around Australia and the world – together.    If you hop on board with the team, you'll experience a workplace where creativity, diversity and innovation are encouraged. We aim to give every member of the Qantas Group the support to follow their dreams, face new challenges, and let their future take flight. Ultimately, people are our priority – those who work for us and those who travel with us.  For the latest information on the cyber incident: https://bit.ly/3I7jNfM Member of the oneworld Alliance. Please read the Qantas LinkedIn House Rules at http://bit.ly/QFhouserules

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 17,358
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/easyjet.jpeg
easyJet
—
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/qantas.jpeg
Qantas
—
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
easyJet
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Qantas
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for easyJet in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

Qantas has 545.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

easyJet cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Qantas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/easyjet.jpeg
easyJet
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qantas.jpeg
Qantas
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Vishing, Stolen OAuth Tokens, Salesforce Instance Exploitation (Salesloft’s Drift AI Chat Integration), Dark Web Data Leak Site (DLS), Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Reputation Damage, Regulatory Pressure (GDPR Fines), Disruption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Salesforce Vulnerability, Unauthorized Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Extortion, Reputation Damage, Data Theft for Dark Web Sales
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Credential Abuse, Third-Party Vulnerability (Salesforce)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Extortion), Data Theft for Dark Web Sale
Blog: Blog

FAQ

easyJet company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Qantas company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Qantas company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas easyJet company has not reported any.

In the current year, Qantas company has reported more cyber incidents than easyJet company.

Qantas company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while easyJet company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Qantas company has disclosed at least one data breach, while easyJet company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Qantas company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while easyJet company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither easyJet company nor Qantas company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither easyJet nor Qantas holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Qantas company and easyJet company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Qantas company employs more people globally than easyJet company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither easyJet nor Qantas holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither easyJet nor Qantas holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither easyJet nor Qantas holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither easyJet nor Qantas holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither easyJet nor Qantas holds HIPAA certification.

Neither easyJet nor Qantas holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References