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

Comparison Overview

FareHarborFareHarbor
VS
Carnival Cruise LineCarnival Cruise Line
FareHarbor

FareHarbor

N/A

Last Update: 07/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://fareharbor.com
762/1000Fair

At FareHarbor, our mission is to make experiences better for everyone. Founded in 2013 in Hawaii and acquired by Booking Holdings in 2018, FareHarbor creates powerful tools that enable our clients (think boat rentals, museums, food tours, events and more!) to operate an...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:788
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Carnival Cruise Line

Carnival Cruise Line

3655 NW 87th Avenue, Miami, Florida, US, 33178

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://jobs.carnival.com/
662/1000Weak

Since our founding in 1972, Carnival Cruise Line — "The World’s Most Popular Cruise Line®” — carries millions of passengers every year. We offer a fun and unique career destination for a wide range of professionals in Marketing, IT, Accounting/Audit, Finance, Marine Ope...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:27,173
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FareHarbor

FareHarbor

-
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
Carnival Cruise Line

Carnival Cruise Line

-
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 Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FareHarbor in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

Carnival Cruise Line has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

FareHarbor cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Carnival Cruise Line (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carnival Cruise Line 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...
FareHarbor

FareHarbor

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Carnival Cruise Line

Carnival Cruise Line

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAR1780295181
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAR1780325760
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CAR327092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-14776
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function pathinfo of the file /upload_files.php of the component Filename Extension. Performing a manipulation results in unrestricted upload. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-14775
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /process_lesson.php. Such manipulation of the argument user_id leads to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-14774
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /paymentdischarge.php. This manipulation of the argument patientid causes sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-14773
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /payment.php. The manipulation of the argument patientid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-10657
SUMMARY

Zephyr's DNS resolver detects mDNS (.local) queries in dns_resolve_name_internal() (subsys/net/lib/dns/resolve.c) with memcmp(strrchr(query, '.'), ".local", 7), which always reads a fixed 7 bytes from the suffix pointer. When the resolved hostname's final label is shorter than 7 bytes (e.g. names ending in .org, .com, .net, .io, or a trailing dot), the comparison reads 1-2 bytes past the string's NUL terminator. The hostname (query) is the caller-supplied name passed through the standard getaddrinfo()/dns_get_addr_info()/dns_resolve_name() path and is influenceable by operators or remote inputs (server names from configuration, parsed URLs, or app-facing interfaces). On a tightly-sized buffer with no slack (for example a userspace getaddrinfo call where the hostname is copied with k_usermode_string_alloc_copy to exactly strlen+1 bytes), the over-read crosses the allocation boundary; if that boundary is unmapped (guard page, memory-domain boundary under MPU, or an address sanitizer) the over-read faults, causing a denial of service. The over-read bytes are never returned, so there is no information disclosure. The flaw is compiled only when CONFIG_MDNS_RESOLVER is enabled, exists since v1.10.0, and is fixed by replacing the fixed-length memcmp with a NUL-safe strcmp(ptr, ".local").

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2