Comparison Overview

Holiday Inn Express

VS

Shangri-La Group

Holiday Inn Express

Global, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

An IHG hotel. IHG Hotels & Resorts [LON:IHG, NYSE:IHG (ADRs)] is a global hospitality company, with a purpose to provide True Hospitality for Good. At Holiday Inn Express, we strive to make every interaction you have with us simple, smart and refreshingly engaging. With over 3,000 hotels in 75 different countries, Holiday Inn Express is IHG’s largest brand and one of the fastest growing hotel brands in the industry. Holiday Inn Express offers affordable hotels, high speed internet access, free breakfast and a comfortable room that will leave you relaxed and recharged. InterContinental Hotels Group PLC is the Group’s holding company and is incorporated in Great Britain and registered in England and Wales. Approximately 350,000 people work across IHG's hotels and corporate offices globally. Visit https://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/reservation for hotel information and reservations and www.ihgrewards.com for more on IHG One Rewards. For our latest news, follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 22,086
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Shangri-La Group

Kerry Centre, 683 King's Road, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong, HK
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Headquartered in Hong Kong SAR, the Shangri-La Group has grown from a single hotel business to a diverse and integrated global portfolio comprising quality real estate and investment properties, wellness and lifestyle facilities. Today, the Group owns, operates and manages 100+ hotels under our family of five brands: Shangri-La, Shangri-La Signatures, Kerry Hotels, JEN by Shangri-La, and Traders. We are part of the Kuok Group, one of Asia's most dynamic multinational conglomerates and a leader in properties, logistics, agribusiness, maritime and hospitality. From our strong base in Asia, we have expanded into key gateway cities and markets around the world. Our properties sit on some of the world’s most prestigious addresses and exotic destinations. Through the environments we have created, we enable people to come together to live, work, play, eat, and rest well.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 16,362
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/holidayinnexpress.jpeg
Holiday Inn Express
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/shangri-la-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Shangri-La Group
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
Holiday Inn Express
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Shangri-La Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Holiday Inn Express in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Shangri-La Group in 2026.

Incident History — Holiday Inn Express (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Holiday Inn Express cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Shangri-La Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shangri-La Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/holidayinnexpress.jpeg
Holiday Inn Express
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/shangri-la-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Shangri-La Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Holiday Inn Express company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Shangri-La Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Shangri-La Group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Holiday Inn Express company has not reported any.

In the current year, Shangri-La Group company and Holiday Inn Express company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Shangri-La Group company nor Holiday Inn Express company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Shangri-La Group company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Holiday Inn Express company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Shangri-La Group company nor Holiday Inn Express company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Holiday Inn Express company nor Shangri-La Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Holiday Inn Express nor Shangri-La Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Shangri-La Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Holiday Inn Express company.

Holiday Inn Express company employs more people globally than Shangri-La Group company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Holiday Inn Express nor Shangri-La Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Holiday Inn Express nor Shangri-La Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Holiday Inn Express nor Shangri-La Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Holiday Inn Express nor Shangri-La Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Holiday Inn Express nor Shangri-La Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Holiday Inn Express nor Shangri-La Group 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