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

Comparison Overview

Fairmont Hotel VancouverFairmont Hotel Vancouver
VS
Mandarin OrientalMandarin Oriental
Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

900 W Georgia St, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2W6, CA

Last Update: 19/12/2025

View Profile
775/1000Fair

At the very heart of Vancouver is the historic Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. Known as the 'Castle in the City’, it reflects the timeless luxury of Canada's iconic hotels. Located just steps from Vancouver’s business, shopping and entertainment district, it is the perfec...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:444
Subsidiaries:115
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Mandarin Oriental

Mandarin Oriental

18 Westlands Road, Quarry Bay, ., HK

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group is the award-winning owner and operator of some of the world’s most luxurious hotels, resorts and residences. Having grown from its Asian roots into a global brand, the Group now operates 43 hotels, 12 residences and 23 exclusive homes in 2...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:13,845
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

-
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
Mandarin Oriental

Mandarin Oriental

-
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 Hotel Vancouver in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mandarin Oriental in 2026.

Incidents

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

Fairmont Hotel Vancouver cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Mandarin Oriental (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mandarin Oriental 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...
Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

Fairmont Hotel Vancouver

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mandarin Oriental

Mandarin Oriental

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MAN233072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1