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

Comparison Overview

Fairmont BeijingFairmont Beijing
VS
WhitbreadWhitbread
Fairmont Beijing

Fairmont Beijing

N/A

Last Update: 29/12/2025

View Profile
773/1000Fair

Fairmont Beijing, one of China's most sought after luxury hotels, welcomes you to the heart of the capital's central business district. The hotel is surrounded by Fortune 500 companies and the city's premier office towers, including LG Twin Tower, SK Group Tower, Beijin...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:47
Subsidiaries:115
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Whitbread

Whitbread

Whitbread Court, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5XE, GB

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
792/1000Fair

Whitbread PLC is the owner of the UK’s favourite hotel chain, Premier Inn, as well as restaurant brands, Beefeater, Brewers Fayre, Table Table, Bar + Block and Cookhouse and Pub. Whitbread employs more than 35,000 people in more than 1,200 Premier Inn hotels and restau...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:13,668
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fairmont Beijing

Fairmont Beijing

-
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
Whitbread

Whitbread

-
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 Fairmont Beijing in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Whitbread in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fairmont Beijing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fairmont Beijing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Whitbread (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Whitbread cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Fairmont Beijing

Fairmont Beijing

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Whitbread

Whitbread

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8