Comparison Overview

Indus Hospitality Group

VS

Meliá Hotels International

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 Dunkin’ 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

Meliá Hotels International

C/Gremi Boters 24, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, 07009, ES
Last Update: 2025-03-05 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900

Welcome to Meliá Hotels International! From Mallorca to the world, our story is an exciting journey that began more than six decades ago and has led us to become one of the largest hotel chains on the planet and the most sustainable in Europe (S&P Global). With more than 400 hotels across the world, our passion for hospitality drives us to deliver unique and memorable experiences through our nine brands: Gran Meliá Hotels & Resorts, ME by Meliá, The Meliá Collection, Paradisus by Meliá, Meliá Hotels & Resorts, ZEL, INNSiDE by Meliá, Sol by Meliá and Affiliated by Meliá. If you are looking for a place where your talent can shine and contribute to a more sustainable future, Meliá Hotels International is your destination. We are a family of more than 45,000 people, where every one of us is a VIP (Very Inspiring People) and we are proud to be a Top Employer in multiple countries. Being part of Meliá is to undertake a journey without borders, because the possibilities for development and learning are endless. Here, we enjoy a passionate and familiar environment, full of opportunities where inspiration will always be with you. Join us and feel like a true VIP!

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 16,108
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/indus-hospitality-group.jpeg
Indus Hospitality Group
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/melia-hotels-international.jpeg
Meliá Hotels International
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Indus Hospitality Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Meliá Hotels International
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 Meliá Hotels International in 2025.

Incident History — Indus Hospitality Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

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

Incident History — Meliá Hotels International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Meliá Hotels International 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/melia-hotels-international.jpeg
Meliá Hotels International
Incidents

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

FAQ

Indus Hospitality Group company company demonstrates a stronger AI risk posture compared to Meliá Hotels International company company, reflecting its advanced AI governance and monitoring frameworks.

Meliá Hotels International company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Indus Hospitality Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Meliá Hotels International company and Indus Hospitality Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Meliá Hotels International company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Indus Hospitality Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Meliá Hotels International company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Meliá Hotels International company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Indus Hospitality Group company nor Meliá Hotels International company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Indus Hospitality Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Meliá Hotels International company.

Meliá Hotels International company employs more people globally than Indus Hospitality Group 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