Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

ITS Coop TravelITS Coop Travel
VS
Avis Budget GroupAvis Budget Group
ITS Coop Travel

ITS Coop Travel

ITS Coop Travel, Volketswil, 8604, CH

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.itscoop.ch/
757/1000Fair

ITS Coop Travel ist ein Pauschalreiseveranstalter mit Spezialisierung auf Badeferien. Das Joint Venture Unternehmen ist je zur Hälfte im Besitz der Coop Genossenschaft in Basel und DER Touristik Central Europe GmbH (REWE Group) in Deutschland. Die touristischen Leistung...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:20
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget Group

6 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, 07054, US

Last Update: 24/05/2026

View Profile
650/1000Weak

Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a leading global provider of transportation solutions, both through its Avis and Budget brands, which have more than 11,000 rental locations in approximately 180 countries around the world, and through its Zipcar brand, which is the world's le...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:18,117
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ITS Coop Travel

ITS Coop Travel

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget Group

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ITS Coop Travel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

Avis Budget Group has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - ITS Coop Travel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ITS Coop Travel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Avis Budget Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Avis Budget Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
ITS Coop Travel

ITS Coop Travel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI1779603892
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI337072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI656072725

FAQ

Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between ITS Coop Travel company and Avis Budget Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between ITS Coop Travel and Avis Budget Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between ITS Coop Travel and Avis Budget Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - ITS Coop Travel or Avis Budget Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - ITS Coop Travel or Avis Budget Group ?
Between ITS Coop Travel and Avis Budget Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between ITS Coop Travel and Avis Budget Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8