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

Comparison Overview

FCM Travel AustraliaFCM Travel Australia
VS
BCD TravelBCD Travel
FCM Travel Australia

FCM Travel Australia

275 Grey St, Brisbane, QLD, 4101, AU

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
760/1000Fair

Welcome to FCM, the alternative corporate travel company. What makes us the alternative? We make business travel a pleasure. Don’t just ‘get there’. Connect globally. Think differently. Travel better. Give yourself the flexibility to do corporate travel on your own ter...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:263
Subsidiaries:51
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
BCD Travel

BCD Travel

Europalaan 300, Utrecht, NL, 3526 KS

Last Update: 04/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bcdtravel.com
721/1000Moderate

BCD Travel helps companies travel smart and achieve more. We drive program adoption, cost savings and talent retention through digital experiences that simplify business travel. Our 15,000+ dedicated team members service clients in 170+ countries as we shape a sustainab...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:16,649
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FCM Travel Australia

FCM Travel Australia

-
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
BCD Travel

BCD Travel

-
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 FCM Travel Australia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

BCD Travel has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - FCM Travel Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FCM Travel Australia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - BCD Travel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BCD Travel 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...
FCM Travel Australia

FCM Travel Australia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
BCD Travel

BCD Travel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BCD1780576089
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
BCD528072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2