Comparison Overview

Indus Hospitality Group

VS

Two Roads Hospitality

Indus Hospitality Group

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

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

Two Roads Hospitality

10333 E Dry Creek Rd Suite 450 Englewood, CO 80112, US
Last Update: 2025-03-15 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000
http://www.tworoadshotels.com

Founded in 2016, Two Roads Hotels is an international lifestyle hotel company that manages and operates the Alila Hotels & Resorts, Destination Hotels, Joie de Vivre Hotels, Thompson Hotels, and tommie Hotels brands. At Two Roads, we create extraordinary experiences for those unafraid to break from the masses...and seek the road less traveled. We believe you should live the life you imagine. We ensure your life's journeys are as extraordinary and individual as you. Two Roads Hospitality is a collection of truly individual hotels and resorts for the independent traveler. Two Roads. Stay who you want to be. Explore our brands: Joie de Vivre celebrates discovery, playfulness and open-mindedness. Featuring the largest collection of boutique hotels in California, with additional locations across the U.S., JDV properties are eclectic, colorful, and bursting with personality, making them the perfect setting to explore and experience the “joy of life.” Thompson Hotels empower sophisticated living for the savvy traveler. With a modern aesthetic and a focus on luxury design and service, Thompson Hotels inspire their guests to be residents, not visitors, in whatever city they’re in. Unleashing potential is what tommie does best. tommie hotels encourage self-expression and authentic discovery, providing a home base for the creative and open-minded to explore the unconventional through its boutique hotels in gateway cities. Destination Hotels' distinctive, upscale properties in locations across the country are true to place and diverse by design. Destination Hotels are for the traveler seeking an authentic experience coupled with unmatched levels of service. Alila means “surprise” in Sanskrit, and it’s the surprise of discovery and breathtaking beauty that Alila celebrates. Alila’s exclusive luxury properties celebrate the uniqueness of their surroundings, from Jaipur to Jakarta, and emphasize sustainability as much as exceptional service.

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
—
ISO 27001
Not verified
—
SOC 2
Not verified
—
GDPR
No public badge
—
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/two-roads-hospitality.jpeg
Two Roads Hospitality
—
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
Two Roads Hospitality
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 Two Roads Hospitality 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 — Two Roads Hospitality (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Two Roads Hospitality 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/two-roads-hospitality.jpeg
Two Roads Hospitality
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Indus Hospitality Group company and Two Roads Hospitality company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Two Roads Hospitality company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Indus Hospitality Group company.

In the current year, Two Roads Hospitality company and Indus Hospitality Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Two Roads Hospitality company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Two Roads Hospitality company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Two Roads Hospitality company nor Indus Hospitality Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Indus Hospitality Group company nor Two Roads Hospitality company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Indus Hospitality Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Two Roads Hospitality company.

Indus Hospitality Group company employs more people globally than Two Roads Hospitality 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.

Published
Date
2025-09-29
Updated
Date
2025-09-29
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-09-29
Updated
Date
2025-09-29
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-09-29
Updated
Date
2025-09-29
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-09-29
Updated
Date
2025-09-29
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
References
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

Published
Date
2025-09-29
Updated
Date
2025-09-29
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
References