Comparison Overview

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

VS

DoubleTree by Hilton

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

Dubai Media City, Dubai, Dubai, 500569, AE
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

Located in the heart of each destination we call home, a stay at any Fairmont hotel is truly unforgettable. Known for grand and awe-inspiring properties and thoughtful and engaging colleagues who aim to make each and every stay a cherished and memorable experience, we have been the stage for some of the most significant moments in global history. As a part of ALL - the Accor Live Limitless Lifestyle Loyalty Program, with 90 exceptional addresses in 32 countries, we are as favored by world leaders and business travelers as we are by families and those with a penchant for luxurious travels. Fairmont Hotels stand at the intersection of elegance and culture, where significant occasions are honored and pivotal global events unfold. Wherever we are situated, our hotels become the cultural and social heart of the community; so immersed in local traditions and so deeply connected to our surroundings, Fairmont Hotels are seen as an essential part of their respective destinations.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 21,163
Subsidiaries: 120
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

DoubleTree by Hilton

7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

DoubleTree by Hilton hotels are distinctively designed properties that provide true comfort to today’s business and leisure travelers. From the millions of delighted hotel guests who are welcomed with the brand’s legendary, warm chocolate chip cookies at check-in to the advantages of the award-winning Hilton HHonors® guest reward program, each DoubleTree by Hilton guest receives a satisfying stay wherever their travels take them. With a growing collection of contemporary, upscale accommodations in more than 375+ gateway cities, metropolitan areas and vacation destinations worldwide. DoubleTree by Hilton is part of Hilton Worldwide (NYSE: HLT), a leading global hospitality company spanning the lodging sector from luxury and full-service hotels and resorts to extended-stay suites and focused-service hotels. For 95 years, Hilton Worldwide has been dedicated to continuing its tradition of providing exceptional guest experiences. The company’s portfolio of eleven world-class global brands is comprised of more than 4,100 managed, franchised, owned and leased hotels and timeshare properties, with more than 685,000 rooms in 92 countries and territories, including Hilton Hotels & Resorts, Waldorf Astoria Hotels & Resorts, Conrad Hotels & Resorts, Curio – A Collection by Hilton, DoubleTree by Hilton, Embassy Suites Hotels, Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton Hotels, Homewood Suites by Hilton, Home2 Suites by Hilton and Hilton Grand Vacations. The company also manages an award-winning customer loyalty program, Hilton Honors.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 15,542
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fairmont-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
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/doubletree-hilton.jpeg
DoubleTree by Hilton
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
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DoubleTree by Hilton
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fairmont Hotels & Resorts in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DoubleTree by Hilton in 2026.

Incident History — Fairmont Hotels & Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — DoubleTree by Hilton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DoubleTree by Hilton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fairmont-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/doubletree-hilton.jpeg
DoubleTree by Hilton
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: denial-of-service malware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Point-of-Sale System
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to DoubleTree by Hilton company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

DoubleTree by Hilton company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company.

In the current year, DoubleTree by Hilton company and Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither DoubleTree by Hilton company nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both DoubleTree by Hilton company and Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither DoubleTree by Hilton company nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company nor DoubleTree by Hilton company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts nor DoubleTree by Hilton holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to DoubleTree by Hilton company.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company employs more people globally than DoubleTree by Hilton company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts nor DoubleTree by Hilton holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts nor DoubleTree by Hilton holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts nor DoubleTree by Hilton holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts nor DoubleTree by Hilton holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts nor DoubleTree by Hilton holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts nor DoubleTree by Hilton holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N