Comparison Overview

Jumeirah

VS

Holiday Inn

Jumeirah

Dubai Design District , Building 5, Level 5, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, AE, PO BOX 73137
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Jumeirah, a global leader in luxury hospitality and a member of Dubai Holding, operates an exceptional portfolio of 31 properties, including 33 signature F&B restaurants, across the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Africa. In 1999, Jumeirah changed the face of luxury hospitality with the opening of the iconic Jumeirah Burj Al Arab and the brand is now renowned worldwide for its distinguished beachfront resorts, esteemed city hotels and luxury residences. From the contemporary Maldivian island paradise at Jumeirah Olhahali Island to the art-inspired Jumeirah Capri Palace in Italy and the modern twist on a British classic at Jumeirah Carlton Tower in London, the brand has become synonymous with warm and generous service and the ability to craft distinctive and purposeful experiences that bring joy to guests from across the world.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 14,503
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Holiday Inn

3 Ravinia Dr, Atlanta, 30346, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

More than an iconic place to stay, Holiday Inn Hotels are a place to be in the moment–gathered to celebrate with family, laughing with friends, sharing a meal with the team, or just for some well-deserved me-time. No matter the reason you travel, when you’re here, you’re right where you’re meant to be. Book with us and become an IHG One Rewards member.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 12,325
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jumeirah.jpeg
Jumeirah
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/holiday-inn-hotels.jpeg
Holiday Inn
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
Jumeirah
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Holiday Inn
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jumeirah in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Holiday Inn in 2026.

Incident History — Jumeirah (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jumeirah cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Holiday Inn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Holiday Inn cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jumeirah.jpeg
Jumeirah
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/holiday-inn-hotels.jpeg
Holiday Inn
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

FAQ

Jumeirah company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Holiday Inn company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Holiday Inn company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Jumeirah company has not reported any.

In the current year, Holiday Inn company and Jumeirah company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Holiday Inn company nor Jumeirah company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Holiday Inn company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Jumeirah company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Holiday Inn company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Jumeirah company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Jumeirah company nor Holiday Inn company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jumeirah nor Holiday Inn holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Jumeirah company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Holiday Inn company.

Jumeirah company employs more people globally than Holiday Inn company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Jumeirah nor Holiday Inn holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jumeirah nor Holiday Inn holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jumeirah nor Holiday Inn holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jumeirah nor Holiday Inn holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jumeirah nor Holiday Inn holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jumeirah nor Holiday Inn holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N