Comparison Overview

Heathrow

VS

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Heathrow

Compass Centre, Hounslow, England, GB, TW6 2
Last Update: 2025-12-29
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.heathrow.com/

Heathrow is the UK’s international gateway, the largest airport in Europe and the most connected megahub in the world – connecting to over 230 destinations in nearly 90 countries. The airport welcomes over 82 million passengers a year and serves as Britain’s hub for tourism, investment and trade – with over 26% of the UK’s exports (by value) going through Heathrow. With over 90,000 working at Heathrow, the airport is also a hub for employment as the UK’s largest single-site employer.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 5,793
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, None, Amstelveen, None, NL, 1182 GP
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 700 and 749
http://klmf.ly/R05uLo

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to major cities and economic centres all over the world. Through our LinkedIn account, we make sure you are kept up-to-date about KLM and other developments in the air transport industry.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 22,391
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/heathrow-airport.jpeg
Heathrow
—
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/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch 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
Compliance Summary
Heathrow
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

Heathrow has 163.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has 31.58% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Heathrow cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/heathrow-airport.jpeg
Heathrow
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: AI-Amplified Social Engineering, Third-Party Customer Service Platform Exploitation, Voice Cloning, Deepfake Impersonation
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Identity Theft, Loyalty Program Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party system compromise
Motivation: Potential misuse in targeted scams
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Heathrow company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Heathrow company.

In the current year, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported more cyber incidents than Heathrow company.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company nor Heathrow company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Heathrow company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company and Heathrow company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither Heathrow company nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Heathrow nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company and Heathrow company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company employs more people globally than Heathrow company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither Heathrow nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Heathrow nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Heathrow nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Heathrow nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Heathrow nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Heathrow nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. Affected is an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPUserSetting. Performing manipulation of the argument delno results in stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

Published
Date
2025-12-28
Updated
Date
2025-12-28
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
References
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. This impacts an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPServer. Such manipulation of the argument ip1 leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Published
Date
2025-12-28
Updated
Date
2025-12-28
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
References
Description

A flaw has been found in omec-project UPF up to 2.1.3-dev. This affects the function handleSessionEstablishmentRequest of the file /pfcpiface/pfcpiface/messages_session.go of the component PFCP Session Establishment Request Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack may be initiated remotely. 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
Date
2025-12-28
Updated
Date
2025-12-28
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in floooh sokol up to 16cbcc864012898793cd2bc57f802499a264ea40. The impacted element is the function _sg_pipeline_desc_defaults in the library sokol_gfx.h. The manipulation results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit is now public and may be used. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The patch is identified as 5d11344150973f15e16d3ec4ee7550a73fb995e0. It is advisable to implement a patch to correct this issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-28
Updated
Date
2025-12-28
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
References
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in PbootCMS up to 3.2.12. The affected element is the function get_user_ip of the file core/function/handle.php of the component Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument X-Forwarded-For leads to use of less trusted source. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Published
Date
2025-12-28
Updated
Date
2025-12-28
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
References