Comparison Overview

San Francisco International Airport

VS

JetBlue

San Francisco International Airport

S. McDonnell Rd, None, San Franciso, CA, US, 94128-8097
Last Update: 2025-12-01

San Francisco International Airport (SFO), an enterprise department of the City & County of San Francisco, has a workforce of approximately 1,700 City employees and strives to be a diverse, equitable, and inclusive employer. SFO’s mission is to provide an exceptional airport in service to our communities and our core values are Safety and Security, Teamwork, Excellence, Care and Equity. https://www.flysfo.com/social-media-policy

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 1,247
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

JetBlue

27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, New York, 11101, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

When JetBlue first took flight in February 2000, our founding goal was to bring humanity back to air travel, and over two decades later, we still put our customers, crewmembers and communities at the center of everything we do. Before we even had aircraft to fly, our founders selected five values to guide us, which are safety, caring, integrity, passion and fun. These core values shape our culture and empower our 23,000 crewmembers to deliver a meaningful JetBlue experience to more than 40 million customers that fly with us each year to more than 100 cities across the United States, Latin America, Caribbean, Canada and Europe. We’re proud to be New York's Hometown Airline®, and a leading carrier in Boston, Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood, Los Angeles, Orlando, and San Juan. Please note: If you have concerns or complaints that require response, please visit http://jetblue.com/chat.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 16,257
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/flysfo.jpeg
San Francisco International Airport
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jetblue-airways.jpeg
JetBlue
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
San Francisco International Airport
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
JetBlue
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for San Francisco International Airport in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JetBlue in 2025.

Incident History — San Francisco International Airport (X = Date, Y = Severity)

San Francisco International Airport cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — JetBlue (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JetBlue cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/flysfo.jpeg
San Francisco International Airport
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malicious Code Injection
Motivation: Credential Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jetblue-airways.jpeg
JetBlue
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

JetBlue company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to San Francisco International Airport company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

San Francisco International Airport company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas JetBlue company has not reported any.

In the current year, JetBlue company and San Francisco International Airport company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither JetBlue company nor San Francisco International Airport company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

San Francisco International Airport company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other JetBlue company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither JetBlue company nor San Francisco International Airport company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither San Francisco International Airport company nor JetBlue company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither San Francisco International Airport nor JetBlue holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

JetBlue company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to San Francisco International Airport company.

JetBlue company employs more people globally than San Francisco International Airport company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither San Francisco International Airport nor JetBlue holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither San Francisco International Airport nor JetBlue holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither San Francisco International Airport nor JetBlue holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither San Francisco International Airport nor JetBlue holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither San Francisco International Airport nor JetBlue holds HIPAA certification.

Neither San Francisco International Airport nor JetBlue holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to 1.10.4, some of HedgeDoc's OAuth2 endpoints for social login providers such as Google, GitHub, GitLab, Facebook or Dropbox lack CSRF protection, since they don't send a state parameter and verify the response using this parameter. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.10.4.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

Langflow versions up to and including 1.6.9 contain a chained vulnerability that enables account takeover and remote code execution. An overly permissive CORS configuration (allow_origins='*' with allow_credentials=True) combined with a refresh token cookie configured as SameSite=None allows a malicious webpage to perform cross-origin requests that include credentials and successfully call the refresh endpoint. An attacker-controlled origin can therefore obtain fresh access_token / refresh_token pairs for a victim session. Obtained tokens permit access to authenticated endpoints — including built-in code-execution functionality — allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary code and achieve full system compromise.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
Description

A vulnerability was detected in xerrors Yuxi-Know up to 0.4.0. This vulnerability affects the function OtherEmbedding.aencode of the file /src/models/embed.py. Performing manipulation of the argument health_url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The patch is named 0ff771dc1933d5a6b78f804115e78a7d8625c3f3. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. The vendor responded with a vulnerability confirmation and a list of security measures they have established already (e.g. disabled URL parsing, disabled URL upload mode, removed URL-to-markdown conversion).

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/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
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Rarlab RAR App up to 7.11 Build 127 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.rarlab.rar. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 7.20 build 128 is able to mitigate this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor responded very professional: "This is the real vulnerability affecting RAR for Android only. WinRAR and Unix RAR versions are not affected. We already fixed it in RAR for Android 7.20 build 128 and we publicly mentioned it in that version changelog. (...) To avoid confusion among users, it would be useful if such disclosure emphasizes that it is RAR for Android only issue and WinRAR isn't affected."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.1
Severity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 2.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/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
Description

A weakness has been identified in ZSPACE Q2C NAS up to 1.1.0210050. Affected by this issue is the function zfilev2_api.OpenSafe of the file /v2/file/safe/open of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. This manipulation of the argument safe_dir causes command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 9.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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