Comparison Overview

International Airlines Group (IAG)

VS

Cathay Pacific

International Airlines Group (IAG)

Speedbird Way, None, London, England, GB, UB7 0
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

International Airlines Group (IAG) is one of the world’s largest airline groups with 600+ aircraft carrying more than 122 million customers to 260 destinations across 91 countries each year. Formed in January 2011, IAG is the parent company of Aer Lingus, British Airways, Iberia, Vueling and LEVEL. It is a Spanish registered company with shares traded on the London Stock Exchange and Spanish Stock Exchanges. The corporate head office for IAG is in London, UK. IAG combines leading airlines in the UK, Ireland and Spain, enabling them to enhance their presence in the aviation market while retaining their individual brands and current operations. The airlines'​ customers benefit from a larger combined network for both passengers and cargo, and a greater ability to invest in new products and services through improved financial robustness.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 602
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Cathay Pacific

Cathay City, Chek Lap Kok, HK
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Welcome to the official Cathay Pacific LinkedIn page. We have over 200 destinations in our global network, but want to do more than just move you from A to B. We want to take you further in your journey, and ultimately, to move beyond. And we’re here to do what we can to help you discover what’s next. For flight and related enquiries, please contact us via WhatsApp (+852 2747 2747). For other feedback or a formal response, please fill out the form at https://bit.ly/3N7e3BM.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 14,730
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/international-airlines-group-iag-.jpeg
International Airlines Group (IAG)
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/cathay-pacific.jpeg
Cathay Pacific
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
International Airlines Group (IAG)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cathay Pacific
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for International Airlines Group (IAG) in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cathay Pacific in 2025.

Incident History — International Airlines Group (IAG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

International Airlines Group (IAG) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cathay Pacific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cathay Pacific cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/international-airlines-group-iag-.jpeg
International Airlines Group (IAG)
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Cyberattack on payroll service provider
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: View victim's personal data, Manipulate booking information
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2018
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Website, Mobile App
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cathay-pacific.jpeg
Cathay Pacific
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

International Airlines Group (IAG) company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cathay Pacific company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

International Airlines Group (IAG) company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Cathay Pacific company has not reported any.

In the current year, Cathay Pacific company and International Airlines Group (IAG) company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor International Airlines Group (IAG) company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

International Airlines Group (IAG) company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Cathay Pacific company has not reported such incidents publicly.

International Airlines Group (IAG) company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Cathay Pacific company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) company nor Cathay Pacific company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) nor Cathay Pacific holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cathay Pacific company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to International Airlines Group (IAG) company.

Cathay Pacific company employs more people globally than International Airlines Group (IAG) company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) nor Cathay Pacific holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) nor Cathay Pacific holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) nor Cathay Pacific holds HIPAA certification.

Neither International Airlines Group (IAG) nor Cathay Pacific 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