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 IndiaFCM Travel India
VS
Costa Crociere S.p.A.Costa Crociere S.p.A.
FCM Travel India

FCM Travel India

4th Floor, AFL House, Mumbai, 400059, IN

Last Update: 25/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://in.fcm.travel
768/1000Fair

FCM Travel Solutions India a global travel management provider spanning over 90 countries worldwide. We are committed to generating better travel ideas that will lead to greater savings for your business. Winner of the World's Leading Travel Management Company Award at...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:1,505
Subsidiaries:51
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Piazza Piccapietra 48, Genova, IT, 16121

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
785/1000Fair

Costa belongs to the Carnival Corporation & plc Group, listed on the London and New York stock exchanges, the largest cruise company in the world. Costa, the only Italian cruise company flying the Italian flag, has been sailing the world’s seas for more than 75 years,...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:11,307
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FCM Travel India

FCM Travel India

-
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
Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Costa Crociere S.p.A.

-
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 India in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Costa Crociere S.p.A. in 2026.

Incidents

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

FCM Travel India 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 - Costa Crociere S.p.A. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Costa Crociere S.p.A. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
FCM Travel India

FCM Travel India

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8