Comparison Overview

Hilton Hotels & Resorts

VS

The Country Club India Ltd

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

The Country Club India Ltd

Last Update: 2026-01-17

CCIL - Country Club India Ltd is one of the fastest growing entertainment and leisure conglomerate in India. A Multi-Million dollar entity and a listed company on BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange), CCIL is a pioneer in the concept of family clubbing in the country. CCIL has established 205 properties of which 50 are owned and 155 are franchised properties. Presently it has 172 plus affiliations plus a global gateway via Country Vacations and RCI affiliation of 4000 resorts for its esteemed members. CCIL's very first leisure infrastructure project is Country Club Coconut Grove which is over much 100 acre and completely eco friendly project near Tumkur Bangalore. The Project a resultant of a synergy between the core expertise of the founding organization Amrutha Estates and the innovative vision of participatory clubbing; that hinges on community living and holiday homes with clubbing pleasures. CCIL also forays into the global world with a futuristic project - The proposed Country Club Golf Village is all set to revolutionize the face of the industry, Golf Village is a premium membership concept for the niche lifestyle segment that aspires for the cut above the rest. The concept well accepted by the Non Resident Indians is on a consistent upward swing. Under this project CCIL proposes to build 5 golf courses across the country making golfing a popular phenomenon. CCIL is Country's biggest chain of Family Clubs recognized by the Limca Book of World Records. Besides prominent citizens from all walks of life, we have around 600 Corporate Members, including Microsoft, Satyam Computers, Brooke Bond Lipton (India) Ltd, CMC Ltd and Dr. Reddy's Labs. CCIL provides a state-of-the-art Health Club, multi-cuisine restaurants, business centre, swimming pool and other facilities. A unique benefit to members joining

NAICS: 721
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
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/the-country-club-india-ltd.jpeg
The Country Club India Ltd
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
The Country Club India Ltd
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 The Country Club India Ltd 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 — The Country Club India Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Country Club India Ltd 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/the-country-club-india-ltd.jpeg
The Country Club India Ltd
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Country Club India Ltd 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 The Country Club India Ltd company has not reported any.

In the current year, The Country Club India Ltd company and Hilton Hotels & Resorts company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Country Club India Ltd 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 The Country Club India Ltd company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither The Country Club India Ltd company nor Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts company nor The Country Club India Ltd company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor The Country Club India Ltd holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts company nor The Country Club India Ltd company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Hilton Hotels & Resorts company employs more people globally than The Country Club India Ltd company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor The Country Club India Ltd holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor The Country Club India Ltd holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor The Country Club India Ltd holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor The Country Club India Ltd holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor The Country Club India Ltd holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts nor The Country Club India Ltd 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