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

Comparison Overview

Fairmont Pacific RimFairmont Pacific Rim
VS
Rosewood Hotel GroupRosewood Hotel Group
Fairmont Pacific Rim

Fairmont Pacific Rim

1038 Canada Place Way, Vancouver, V6C 0B9, CA

Last Update: 20/01/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

Fairmont Pacific Rim is a Forbes Five-Star urban retreat found in the heart of Vancouver, seamlessly blending contemporary architecture with breathtaking mountain and harbour views. Rated the World’s Best Business Hotel by Condé Nast Traveler readers and awarded the cov...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:324
Subsidiaries:115
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rosewood Hotel Group

Rosewood Hotel Group

728 King’s Road, Quarry Bay, 21/F K11 Atelier, Hong Kong, HK

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
794/1000Fair

Rosewood Hotel Group is one of the world’s leading global lifestyle and hospitality management groups. It encompasses four brands: ultra-luxury Rosewood; upper-upscale New World Hotels & Resorts; Asaya, an integrated well-being concept; and Carlyle & Co., a modern and p...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:11,164
Subsidiaries:61
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fairmont Pacific Rim

Fairmont Pacific Rim

-
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
Rosewood Hotel Group

Rosewood Hotel Group

-
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 Pacific Rim in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rosewood Hotel Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Fairmont Pacific Rim cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Rosewood Hotel Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rosewood Hotel Group 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 Pacific Rim

Fairmont Pacific Rim

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rosewood Hotel Group

Rosewood Hotel Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROS309072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-7654
SUMMARY

The Admin Columns plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection leading to Remote Code Execution in versions up to and including 7.0.18. This is due to the use of `unserialize()` without an `allowed_classes` restriction in the `IdsToCollection::get_ids_from_string()` function, which processes attacker-controlled post meta values without proper validation. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject a serialized PHP object into a post's custom meta field and trigger arbitrary code execution by exploiting a bundled POP gadget chain, resulting in remote code execution as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-7523
SUMMARY

The Alba Board plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to access arbitrary private alba_card post data, including title, description, assignee, due date, tags, and comments, that is intended to be restricted to Administrators and Editors. The handler is registered via the wp_ajax_nopriv_ hook and its nonce is exposed to all site visitors through wp_localize_script on pages containing the [alba_board] shortcode, making this exploitable by unauthenticated users who can access any such page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-45409
SUMMARY

Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) for Python provides support for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) and Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing. In versions prior to 3.15, payloads such as `"\u0660" * N` or `"\u30fb" * N + "\u6f22"` utilize the `valid_contexto` function prior to length rejection, and for high values of `N` will take a long time to process. This is the same issue as CVE-2024-3651, however the original remediation in 2024 was not a complete fix. A specially crafted argument to the `idna.encode()` function could consume significant resources. This may lead to a denial-of-service. Starting in version 3.14, the function rejects long inputs as soon as practicable prior to any further processing to minimize resource consumption. In version 3.15, this approach was extended to lesser used alternate functions (i.e. per-label conversions and codec support). A workaround is available. Domain names cannot exceed 253 characters in length. If this length limit is enforced prior to passing the domain to the `idna.encode()` function, it should no longer consume significant resources. This is triggered by arbitrarily large inputs that would not occur in normal usage, but may be passed to the library assuming there is no preliminary input validation by the higher-level application.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-2026-11431
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Projects Service download endpoint shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. An authenticated user can supply a crafted path parameter that bypasses validation, allowing arbitrary files (including entire directories returned as archives) to be read from the server filesystem. Because the readable files include service configuration and credential material, exploitation can be used to gather information enabling further compromise. The issue can be combined with CVE-2026-11424 to reach the cloud-side endpoint. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, the readable configuration could have exposed credentials shared across services. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/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-2026-11429
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Git Service component shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. The service accepts a sequence of post-clone file-manipulation operations that use user-supplied paths without validation, allowing an authenticated user with basic git access to move arbitrary files outside the intended repository area. This file-move primitive can be used to place attacker-controlled script content into directories where it is later executed by the service, resulting in remote code execution under the Git Service account. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, this could have allowed access to data belonging to other tenants on the same infrastructure node. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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