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

Comparison Overview

Fairmont Le Château MontebelloFairmont Le Château Montebello
VS
Marriott InternationalMarriott International
Fairmont Le Château Montebello

Fairmont Le Château Montebello

392, Notre-Dame Street, Montebello, QC, J0V 1L0, CA

Last Update: 25/12/2025

View Profile
773/1000Fair

As one of eastern Canada's leading destinations, Fairmont Le Château Montebello hotel is an exceptional Quebec resort famed for its rustic yet luxurious accommodations. Here, in the stunning red cedar log cabin, you'll experience rustic elegance and a warm welcome. A fe...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:115
Subsidiaries:120
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Marriott International

Marriott International

10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, MD, US, 20817

Last Update: 03/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.marriott.com
712/1000Moderate

Marriott International, Inc. is based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, and encompasses a portfolio of approximately 9,000 properties across more than 30 leading brands in 141 countries and territories. Its heritage can be traced to a root beer stand opened in Washington, D....

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:213,175
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fairmont Le Château Montebello

Fairmont Le Château Montebello

-
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
Marriott International

Marriott International

-
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 Le Château Montebello in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

Marriott International has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Fairmont Le Château Montebello (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fairmont Le Château Montebello cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Marriott International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marriott International 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 Le Château Montebello

Fairmont Le Château Montebello

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Marriott International

Marriott International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHEGAS1776335039
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR0802208101125
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR13023722

FAQ

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