Comparison Overview

Indus Hospitality Group

VS

China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation

Indus Hospitality Group

950 Panorama Trail S, Rochester, New York, 14625, US
Last Update: 2025-03-05 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

Indus Hospitality Group owns and operates more than 50 properties, primarily hotels and restaurants in the Rochester, Finger Lakes and Western New York regions. Indus is family-owned and in its third decade of operation, having formed in 1988. There are currently more than 800 people working for the company and the corporate offices are based in Pittsford, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. The team at Indus Hospitality Group has been recognized numerous times as first-class operators, earning national and regional awards, including the Dunkinโ€™ Brands Rising Star of the Year, the Microtel Inn & Suites Franchisee of the Year Award, the Hilton Worldwide Lighthouse Award and TripAdvisor Awards for Excellence.

NAICS: 721
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 100
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation

None
Last Update: 2025-03-15 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

The China Travel Service (Holdings) Limited is the backbone of the state-owned enterprise directly supervise by Central government. It is also the largest travel corporation in China and was established in April 1928 by Chinese banker Chen Guangfu. From generation to generation, it is now a large state-owned enterprise under the direction of the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, and engages in tourism, industrial investment (iron and steel), real estate development and logistics trade. Travel business is the main business of the group. The China Travel International Investment Hong Kong Ltd. (CTII), held by the HKCTS, was the flagship of the group in tourism industry. The HKCTS is the largest travel agencies in Hong Kong. The travel service has opened 43 branches and offices in Hong Kong and Macao, and 21 overseas branches in 16 countries. Looking forward to the future, HKCTS will adhere to the scientific concept of development and make great efforts to build itself into a tourist conglomeration with international competitiveness and an โ€˜aircraft carrierโ€™ in Chinaโ€™s tourist industry, with a rational structure, advanced management expertise, a large contingent of qualified personnel, best application of high-technologies, as well as No. 1 in terms of market shares, total revenue, net profit and net assets, IT application, and comprehensive economic strength.

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/indus-hospitality-group.jpeg
Indus Hospitality Group
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-national-travel-service-hk-group-corporation.jpeg
China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Indus Hospitality Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Indus Hospitality Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Indus Hospitality Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Indus Hospitality Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/indus-hospitality-group.jpeg
Indus Hospitality Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-national-travel-service-hk-group-corporation.jpeg
China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Indus Hospitality Group company and China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Indus Hospitality Group company.

In the current year, China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company and Indus Hospitality Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Indus Hospitality Group company nor China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Indus Hospitality Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company.

Indus Hospitality Group company employs more people globally than China National Travel Service (HK) Group Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

FreshRSS is a free, self-hostable RSS aggregator. Versions 1.26.3 and below do not sanitize certain event handler attributes in feed content, so by finding a page that renders feed entries without CSP, it is possible to execute an XSS payload. The Allow API access authentication setting needs to be enabled by the instance administrator beforehand for the attack to work as it relies on api/query.php. An account takeover is possible by sending a change password request via the XSS payload / setting UserJS for persistence / stealing the autofill password / displaying a phishing page with a spoofed URL using history.replaceState() If the victim is an administrator, the attacker can also perform administrative actions. This issue is fixed in version 1.27.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.6 and below, go-f3 panics when it validates a "poison" messages causing Filecoin nodes consuming F3 messages to become vulnerable. A "poison" message can can cause integer overflow in the signer index validation, which can cause the whole node to crash. These malicious messages aren't self-propagating since the bug is in the validator. An attacker needs to directly send the message to all targets. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.7.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.8 and below, go-f3's justification verification caching mechanism has a vulnerability where verification results are cached without properly considering the context of the message. An attacker can bypass justification verification by submitting a valid message with a correct justification and then reusing the same cached justification in contexts where it would normally be invalid. This occurs because the cached verification does not properly validate the relationship between the justification and the specific message context it's being used with. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.9.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Description

mkdocs-include-markdown-plugin is an Mkdocs Markdown includer plugin. In versions 7.1.7 and below, there is a vulnerability where unvalidated input can collide with substitution placeholders. This issue is fixed in version 7.1.8.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Description

go-mail is a comprehensive library for sending mails with Go. In versions 0.7.0 and below, due to incorrect handling of the mail.Address values when a sender- or recipient address is passed to the corresponding MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands of the SMTP client, there is a possibility of wrong address routing or even ESMTP parameter smuggling. For successful exploitation, it is required that the user's code allows for arbitrary mail address input (i. e. through a web form or similar). If only static mail addresses are used (i. e. in a config file) and the mail addresses in use do not consist of quoted local parts, this should not affect users. This issue is fixed in version 0.7.1

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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