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

Comparison Overview

Flightradar24Flightradar24
VS
Cathay PacificCathay Pacific
Flightradar24

Flightradar24

N/A

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.flightradar24.com
740/1000Moderate

Flightradar24 tracks positions of aircraft in real-time and turns that data into engaging consumer and business applications. The data comes primarily from a proprietary, crowd-sourced network of 40,000+ so-called ADS-B receivers hosted by private individuals and compan...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:79
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Cathay Pacific

Cathay Pacific

Cathay City, 8 Scenic Road, Chek Lap Kok, HK

Last Update: 27/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cathaypacific.com
779/1000Fair

Welcome to the official Cathay Pacific LinkedIn page. We have over 200 destinations in our global network, but want to do more than just move you from A to B. We want to take you further in your journey, and ultimately, to move beyond. And we’re here to do what we can t...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:14,995
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Flightradar24

Flightradar24

-
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
Cathay Pacific

Cathay Pacific

-
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 Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Flightradar24 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cathay Pacific in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Flightradar24 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Flightradar24 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Cathay Pacific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cathay Pacific 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...
Flightradar24

Flightradar24

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FLI24819623
🔒 Incident : Breach
FLI227181122
Cathay Pacific

Cathay Pacific

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Flightradar24 company and Cathay Pacific company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Flightradar24 and Cathay Pacific, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Flightradar24 and Cathay Pacific, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Flightradar24 or Cathay Pacific ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Flightradar24 or Cathay Pacific ?
Between Flightradar24 and Cathay Pacific, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Flightradar24 and Cathay Pacific, 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