Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

JEN by Shangri-LaJEN by Shangri-La
VS
AramarkAramark
JEN by Shangri-La

JEN by Shangri-La

N/A

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.hoteljen.com
776/1000Fair

With our roots across Asia’s gateway cities, JEN reflects the dynamism that has established Asia as a force on the global stage. Designed for today's highly-driven pacesetters that are hungry to explore all that Asia has to offer, JEN champions the culture, conversation...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:463
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aramark

Aramark

2400 Market St, Philadelphia, 19103, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aramark.com
752/1000Fair

Aramark (NYSE: ARMK) proudly serves the world’s leading educational institutions, Fortune 500 companies, world champion sports teams, prominent healthcare providers, iconic destinations and cultural attractions, and numerous municipalities in 16 countries around the wor...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:54,652
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
JEN by Shangri-La

JEN by Shangri-La

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Aramark

Aramark

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JEN by Shangri-La in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aramark in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - JEN by Shangri-La (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JEN by Shangri-La cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Aramark (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aramark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
JEN by Shangri-La

JEN by Shangri-La

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aramark

Aramark

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ARA559082025

FAQ

Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La company and Aramark company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La and Aramark, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La and Aramark, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - JEN by Shangri-La or Aramark ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - JEN by Shangri-La or Aramark ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La and Aramark, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between JEN by Shangri-La and Aramark, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9