Comparison Overview

Global Crossing Airlines

VS

Cathay Pacific

Global Crossing Airlines

Miami, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 600 and 649

Global Crossing Airlines (OTCQB: JETMF | JET: Cboe) is a US 121 domestic flag and supplemental airline flying the Airbus A320 family aircraft. GlobalX flies as an ACMI and wet-lease charter airline serving the US, Caribbean and Latin American markets. For more information, please visit www.globalxair.com.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 342
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Cathay Pacific

Cathay City, Chek Lap Kok, HK
Last Update: 2025-12-02
Between 750 and 799

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 to help you discover what’s next. For flight and related enquiries, please contact us via WhatsApp (+852 2747 2747). For other feedback or a formal response, please fill out the form at https://bit.ly/3N7e3BM.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 14,730
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/global-crossing-airlines.jpeg
Global Crossing Airlines
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/cathay-pacific.jpeg
Cathay Pacific
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
Global Crossing Airlines
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cathay Pacific
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

Global Crossing Airlines has 751.06% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cathay Pacific in 2025.

Incident History — Global Crossing Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Global Crossing Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Cathay Pacific cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/global-crossing-airlines.jpeg
Global Crossing Airlines
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Website Defacement
Motivation: Accusation of ignoring judicial orders related to deportation rulings
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Website Defacement and Data Theft
Motivation: Political
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Website Defacement, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Activism, Exposure of ICE Collaboration
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cathay-pacific.jpeg
Cathay Pacific
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cathay Pacific company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Global Crossing Airlines company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Global Crossing Airlines company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Cathay Pacific company has not reported any.

In the current year, Global Crossing Airlines company has reported more cyber incidents than Cathay Pacific company.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor Global Crossing Airlines company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Global Crossing Airlines company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Cathay Pacific company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Global Crossing Airlines company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Cathay Pacific company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines company nor Cathay Pacific company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cathay Pacific company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Global Crossing Airlines company.

Cathay Pacific company employs more people globally than Global Crossing Airlines company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Global Crossing Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.11.1, vllm has a critical remote code execution vector in a config class named Nemotron_Nano_VL_Config. When vllm loads a model config that contains an auto_map entry, the config class resolves that mapping with get_class_from_dynamic_module(...) and immediately instantiates the returned class. This fetches and executes Python from the remote repository referenced in the auto_map string. Crucially, this happens even when the caller explicitly sets trust_remote_code=False in vllm.transformers_utils.config.get_config. In practice, an attacker can publish a benign-looking frontend repo whose config.json points via auto_map to a separate malicious backend repo; loading the frontend will silently run the backend’s code on the victim host. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. Prior to 12.5.0, by crafting a malicious URL, an attacker could access routes that are not allowed, even though the reply.from is defined for specific routes in @fastify/reply-from. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.5.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

Gin-vue-admin is a backstage management system based on vue and gin. In 2.8.6 and earlier, attackers can delete any file on the server at will, causing damage or unavailability of server resources. Attackers can control the 'FileMd5' parameter to delete any file and folder.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Portkey.ai Gateway is a blazing fast AI Gateway with integrated guardrails. Prior to 1.14.0, the gateway determined the destination baseURL by prioritizing the value in the x-portkey-custom-host request header. The proxy route then appends the client-specified path to perform an external fetch. This can be maliciously used by users for SSRF attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.14.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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