Comparison Overview

Hilton Hotels & Resorts

VS

J D Wetherspoon

Hilton Hotels & Resorts

7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, 22102, US
Last Update: 2026-01-15

As the most recognized hospitality brand in the industry, guests around the globe rely on us as a trusted place for their stay. With 600+ hotels located in the world’s most exciting destinations, we are the place where people gather to experience exceptional hospitality, inspiring design, and energizing and often award winning bars and restaurants. We Are Hilton. We Are Hospitality.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 15,563
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

J D Wetherspoon

Central Park, Watford, WD24 4QL, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-15

J D Wetherspoon is a leading pub operator in the UK and Ireland. Back in 1979, founder chairman Tim Martin opened the very first Wetherspoon – in Muswell Hill, north London. Today, Tim and the company run over 850 pubs and hotels, spread right across the UK and, more recently, Ireland. During its history of over 40 years, Wetherspoon has repeatedly led the way with ground-breaking initiatives, picked up hundreds of awards (covering all aspects of pub life) and grown from a handful of staff to over 40,000 employees. The company seeks to develop its staff through effective and award-winning training and development, through a positive working environment and, of course, by means of a competitive pay packet. Every year, thousands of staff complete one or more of our award-winning training courses, not only preparing them to work safely and to the best of their ability, but also inspiring them to pursue positive career development. The company prides itself in offering, at all levels, excellent training and support.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 12,315
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hilton-hotels-and-resorts-brand.jpeg
Hilton Hotels & Resorts
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/jd-wetherspoon1.jpeg
J D Wetherspoon
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
Hilton Hotels & Resorts
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
J D Wetherspoon
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hilton Hotels & Resorts in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for J D Wetherspoon in 2026.

Incident History — Hilton Hotels & Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hilton Hotels & Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — J D Wetherspoon (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J D Wetherspoon cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hilton-hotels-and-resorts-brand.jpeg
Hilton Hotels & Resorts
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: denial-of-service malware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Point-of-Sale System
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2014
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware (Point-of-Sale Systems)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jd-wetherspoon1.jpeg
J D Wetherspoon
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

J D Wetherspoon company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Hilton Hotels & Resorts company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas J D Wetherspoon company has not reported any.

In the current year, J D Wetherspoon company and Hilton Hotels & Resorts company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither J D Wetherspoon company nor Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other J D Wetherspoon company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither J D Wetherspoon company nor Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts company nor J D Wetherspoon company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor J D Wetherspoon holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts company nor J D Wetherspoon company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Hilton Hotels & Resorts company employs more people globally than J D Wetherspoon company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor J D Wetherspoon holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor J D Wetherspoon holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor J D Wetherspoon holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor J D Wetherspoon holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor J D Wetherspoon holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor J D Wetherspoon holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

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

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

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

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N