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 USAFCM Travel USA
VS
Avis Budget GroupAvis Budget Group
FCM Travel USA

FCM Travel USA

269 Madison Ave, None, New York, None, US, 10016

Last Update: 14/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fcmtravel.com
759/1000Fair

Welcome to FCM, the alternative corporate travel company. What makes us the alternative? We're built to do things differently. We give you the best of both worlds: exceptional support from industry legends plus game-changing technology designed to help you manage and op...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:209
Subsidiaries:51
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget Group

6 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, 07054, US

Last Update: 24/05/2026

View Profile
650/1000Weak

Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a leading global provider of transportation solutions, both through its Avis and Budget brands, which have more than 11,000 rental locations in approximately 180 countries around the world, and through its Zipcar brand, which is the world's le...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:18,117
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FCM Travel USA

FCM Travel USA

-
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
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget 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 Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FCM Travel USA in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

Avis Budget Group has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

FCM Travel USA 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 - Avis Budget Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Avis Budget 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...
FCM Travel USA

FCM Travel USA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI1779603892
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI337072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI656072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63175
SUMMARY

PlaywrightCapture stored capture-specific configuration and runtime data as mutable class-level variables rather than instance-level variables. Consequently, multiple Capture objects running within the same Python process could share state, including HTTP headers, cookies, browser storage, HTTP credentials, proxy configuration, user-agent settings, geolocation information, and captured request data. In a multi-user or concurrent deployment, information supplied during one capture could therefore persist and be reused by a subsequent or parallel capture. This could result in the disclosure of authentication cookies, credentials, browser storage, or captured request data belonging to another user. It could also cause requests to be performed with another capture's authentication context, headers, or proxy configuration, potentially enabling unauthorized access to remote resources or interference with other capture operations. The vulnerability is resolved by initializing all capture-specific settings and request data as instance variables in the Capture constructor, ensuring that state is isolated between capture operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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-2026-62314
SUMMARY

Anubis is a Web AI Firewall Utility that challenges users' connections in order to protect upstream resources from scraper bots. From 1.22.0 until 1.26.0-pre1, lib/policy/checker.go PathChecker.Check() trusted the client-controlled X-Original-URI header before matching r.URL.Path, allowing an HTTP client to match default data/common/keep-internet-working.yaml ALLOW rules such as ^/\.well-known/.*$ and bypass the Anubis challenge. This issue is fixed in version 1.26.0-pre1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55652
SUMMARY

Wekan is open source kanban built with Meteor. Prior to 9.46, header-login with HEADER_LOGIN_TRUSTED_IPS uses getRequestIp() in server/lib/headerLoginAuth.js to trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For header before the real socket address, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to send HEADER_LOGIN_ID for any username and receive a meteor_login_token session, including for admin. This issue is fixed in version 9.46.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55576
SUMMARY

MaaAssistantArknights is a one-click tool for daily Arknights tasks. In the current dev-v2 workflow, .github/workflows/release-preparation.yml inlined attacker-controlled github.event.pull_request.title into a run: shell command during the pull_request opened, reopened, and ready_for_review events, so a non-draft fork PR whose title starts with Release v could execute shell commands on the ubuntu-latest runner during the generate-changelog job. This vulnerability is fixed by commit cafc3946059e6337d2089d4fec8b6885ba17c332.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/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-2026-55445
SUMMARY

Qinglong is a timed task management platform supporting Python3, JavaScript, Shell, and Typescript. Prior to 2.20.1, the init guard middleware in back/loaders/express.ts checks /api/user/init but not /open/user/init, while rewrite('/open/*', '/api/$1') rewrites the whitelisted /open/* path after JWT authentication and the guard have passed; an unauthenticated attacker can send PUT /open/user/init to reset administrator credentials on an initialized instance. This issue is fixed in 2.20.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA