Comparison Overview
Hilton Garden Inn

Hilton Garden Inn
McLean, 22102, US
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Hilton Garden Inn® is an award-winning brand that provides business and leisure guests upscale, affordable accommodations and modern amenities for an experience that is simply on another level. The Hilton Garden Inn Promise affirms the brand’s goal to make each guest’s ...

Marriott Hotels
10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, 20817, US
Last Update: 04/04/2026
With over 500 properties worldwide, Marriott Hotels has reimagined hospitality to exceed the expectations of business, group, and leisure travelers. Marriott Hotels, Marriott’s flagship brand of quality-tier, full-service hotels and resorts, provides consistent, de...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Hilton Garden Inn







Marriott Hotels






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Hilton Garden Inn in 2026.
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Marriott Hotels in 2026.
Incident History - Hilton Garden Inn (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Hilton Garden Inn cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Marriott Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Marriott Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Hilton Garden Inn

Marriott Hotels
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.