Comparison Overview

Japan Airlines

VS

Cathay Pacific

Japan Airlines

Higashi-shinagawa 2-4-11, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, undefined, JP
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Japan Airlines (JAL), Japan’s first private aviation company, was established in 1951 and is a member of the oneworld® Alliance. The airline operates a fleet of 227 aircraft (as of March 2024) and began renewing its international long-haul aircraft with the Airbus A350-1000 starting 2023 Winter Schedule. Together with other JAL Group and partner airlines, JAL offers an extensive domestic and international network that serves 384 airports across 66 countries/regions. JAL is proud to have received numerous accolades for its exceptional service, including being recognized as a certified 5-Star Airline by Skytrax and awarded the prestigious "World Class" Airline title by APEX, the Airline Passenger Experience Association. An airline with a rich history and a reputation for defining the essence of traditional Japanese hospitality, JAL is dedicated to providing guests with the highest standards of flight safety and service quality. JAL aspires to provide an elevated travel experience that heightens your senses and aims to become the most preferred airline in the world. JAL Social Media Use Agreement https://www.jal.com/en/social/use_agreement.html

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 3,246
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/japan-airlines.jpeg
Japan Airlines
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
Japan Airlines
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 Japan Airlines in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cathay Pacific in 2025.

Incident History — Japan Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Japan Airlines 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/japan-airlines.jpeg
Japan Airlines
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cathay-pacific.jpeg
Cathay Pacific
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cathay Pacific company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Japan Airlines company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Cathay Pacific company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Japan Airlines company.

In the current year, Cathay Pacific company and Japan Airlines company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor Japan Airlines company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor Japan Airlines company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cathay Pacific company nor Japan Airlines company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Japan Airlines company nor Cathay Pacific company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Japan Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cathay Pacific company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Japan Airlines company.

Cathay Pacific company employs more people globally than Japan Airlines company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither Japan Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Japan Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Japan Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Japan Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Japan Airlines nor Cathay Pacific holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Japan Airlines 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