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

Comparison Overview

Japan AirlinesJapan Airlines
VS
KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesKLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Japan Airlines

Japan Airlines

Higashi-shinagawa 2-4-11, Shinagawa-ku, JP

Last Update: 07/06/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.jal.com/
575/1000Very Poor

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-...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:3,577
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, Amstelveen, 1182 GP, NL

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://klmf.ly/R05uLo
731/1000Moderate

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:22,827
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Japan Airlines

Japan Airlines

-
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
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

-
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 Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

Japan Airlines has 51.22% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in 2026.

Incidents

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

Japan Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 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...
Japan Airlines

Japan Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
JAP1770796780
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOUPARVOLTIFJAP1770908674
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
JAP1780792210
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM304080925
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM2289123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56785
SUMMARY

FlatPress versions prior to commit 10be83c, contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in comment and contact forms where name, URL, and email fields are rendered without proper output encoding in Smarty templates. Attackers can inject arbitrary HTML and JavaScript through these fields to execute malicious scripts in browsers of viewers including administrators, or bypass URL scheme validation to inject javascript: or data: URIs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54588
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 use the attacker-controlled `HTTP_HOST` request header as the authoritative source for building callback URLs in its OIDC, SAML, and logout authentication flows without any validation. An unauthenticated attacker can poison the `redirect_uri` sent to the Identity Provider, causing the IdP to redirect the victim's authorization code to an attacker-controlled server - resulting in full account takeover with no credentials required. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-48493
SUMMARY

Snipe-IT is an IT asset/license management system. In versions prior to 8.6.0, a user with only users.edit can send a PATCH to /api/v1/users/{their_own_id} and grant themselves any permission except admin and superuser — for example `assets.view`, `assets.create`, `reports.view`, import, etc. The issue is patched in version 8.6.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-47693
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 are vulnerable to CSV Injection (Formula Injection) in its log export functionality. User-controlled data — specifically the username field — is written to exported CSV files without sanitizing formula trigger characters (=, +, -, @). When an administrator exports activity logs and opens the resulting CSV in a spreadsheet application (Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, Google Sheets), any formula stored in a username is executed by the application. This can be used for phishing attacks against administrators or data exfiltration. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-12164
SUMMARY

Fortra File Integrity Monitoring (FIM), formerly Tripwire Enterprise, versions prior to 9.4.0 may assign incorrect or elevated effective permissions to users created by the tetool import command while FIM is running, particularly when the import also creates or changes roles or role-permission relationships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
0.8