Comparison Overview

InterContinental Hotels & Resorts

VS

MGM Resorts International

InterContinental Hotels & Resorts

None
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

As the world's first truly global hotel brand, InterContinental Hotels & Resorts are located in more than 65 countries with local insights that come from over 75 years of experience. Experience luxury travel as it should be, whether you're travelling for work or pleasure, in over 200 global destinations. Visit us on our website: http://ihg.co/ICWebsiteLI

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 8,542
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

MGM Resorts International

840 Grier Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, US, 89119
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 0 and 549

The resorts and casinos of MGM Resorts International™ are some of the most famous in the world. Our 28 destinations are renowned for their winning combination of quality entertainment, luxurious facilities, and exceptional customer service. We are actively expanding our presence globally, with potential developments in a number of domestic and international markets. At MGM Resorts International, we are all striving together to deliver an enticing blend of entertainment to every corner of the world. Many of our resorts are located in Las Vegas. Las Vegas features three of the largest convention centers in the U.S., spectacular entertainment, attractions, shopping, ​and world-famous resorts. Whether dancing fountains, incredible stage productions, casino action, museums or natural attractions such as Lake Mead, Vegas offers something for everyone. A stroll down our streets takes you around the globe, with recreations like climbing to the top of the Eiffel Tower or taking a Venetian gondola ride. From shimmering resort pools and spa rejuvenation to nonstop nightlife, Las Vegas promises an unforgettable career destination. With all of our unique and spectacular resorts and casinos, MGM Resorts International has a world of opportunities for you to discover excitement and rewards as you provide our guests with a wonderful and memorable experience. Take a closer look at our properties. We think you'll find an opportunity that's right for you. The 81,000 global employees of MGM Resorts are proud to be recognized as one of FORTUNE® Magazine’s World’s Most Admired Companies®.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 26,151
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intercontinental-hotels-&-resorts.jpeg
InterContinental Hotels & Resorts
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/mgm-resorts-international.jpeg
MGM Resorts International
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
InterContinental Hotels & Resorts
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MGM Resorts International
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for InterContinental Hotels & Resorts in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

MGM Resorts International has 426.32% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — InterContinental Hotels & Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

InterContinental Hotels & Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — MGM Resorts International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MGM Resorts International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intercontinental-hotels-&-resorts.jpeg
InterContinental Hotels & Resorts
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2016
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Malware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mgm-resorts-international.jpeg
MGM Resorts International
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Phishing, SIM Swapping, Hypervisor-Level Attacks
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Ransomware, Swatting, Extortion, DDoS, SIM Swapping, Cryptocurrency Theft
Motivation: Financial Gain, Retaliation, Ideology, Sexual Gratification, Notoriety
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Help Desk Impersonation
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

FAQ

InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to MGM Resorts International company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

MGM Resorts International company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company.

In the current year, MGM Resorts International company has reported more cyber incidents than InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company.

MGM Resorts International company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both MGM Resorts International company and InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Both MGM Resorts International company and InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company nor MGM Resorts International company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts nor MGM Resorts International holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MGM Resorts International company.

MGM Resorts International company employs more people globally than InterContinental Hotels & Resorts company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts nor MGM Resorts International holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts nor MGM Resorts International holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts nor MGM Resorts International holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts nor MGM Resorts International holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts nor MGM Resorts International holds HIPAA certification.

Neither InterContinental Hotels & Resorts nor MGM Resorts International holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

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