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

Comparison Overview

FCM TravelFCM Travel
VS
BCD TravelBCD Travel
FCM Travel

FCM Travel

322 High Holborn, London, England, WC1V 7PB, AU

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fcmtravel.com/en
763/1000Fair

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:561
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:826
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: 15/10/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bcdtravel.com
726/1000Moderate

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

FCM 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
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 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

BCD Travel has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

FCM Travel 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

FCM Travel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
BCD Travel

BCD Travel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BCD1780576089
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
BCD528072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-112112
SUMMARY

An IPv6 FlowSpec validation bypass in the CZ.NIC BIRD Internet Routing Daemon allows an established BGP peer to inject FlowSpec rules matching destinations outside the address space authorized by the unicast-route validation procedure. With validation enabled on the receiving flow6 channel, BIRD fails to reject a destination prefix component with a nonzero offset, contrary to RFC 8956 section 5. It validates a reconstructed prefix with zero-filled skipped bits, although the original FlowSpec component can match a broader set of IPv6 addresses. Given a suitable unicast route from the peer, the rule can pass validation and, where export policy permits, be propagated to downstream peers. Downstream enforcement may cause unauthorized traffic filtering or redirection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-112111
SUMMARY

The Bootstrap Shortcodes plugin for WordPress before 3.4.6 is vulnerable to stored XSS via the id attribute of the [bs_tcontent] shortcode. The bs_tcontent() shortcode handler in inc/bs_tabs.php emits the id attribute value into an unquoted HTML attribute. esc_attr() is applied, but it does not encode space characters, so a space in the supplied value terminates the attribute and any following text is parsed as additional HTML attributes, including JavaScript event handlers. This allows authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject arbitrary web script that executes in the browser of any user who views the page and interacts with the injected element.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-112029
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in diem-project diem up to 5.1.3. This affects an unknown part of the file lib/model/doctrine/PluginDmUser.class.php of the component SHA1 Handler. Such manipulation of the argument salt/password leads to password hash with insufficient computational effort. The attack needs to be performed locally. The attack requires a high level of complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 1.0
Complexity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-112028
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in light0011 cms c774dce31c6df0055568a8d5c53d964d99be199d/f72cf46f601efb2a0618c3814cc2f61380b38930. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file App/Home/Controller/VoteController.class.php of the component Vote Handler. This manipulation of the argument X-Requested-With causes business logic errors. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-112027
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in light0011 cms c774dce31c6df0055568a8d5c53d964d99be199d/f72cf46f601efb2a0618c3814cc2f61380b38930. Affected by this vulnerability is the function file_exists of the file Public/Home/js/uploadify/check-exists.php of the component Uploadify. The manipulation of the argument filename results in file and directory information exposure. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9