Comparison Overview

JW Marriott

VS

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

JW Marriott

None
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

No loud pretense. No excess formalities. Just understated elegance you’ll feel the moment you walk into one of over 80 worldwide destinations. JW Marriott is part of Marriott International’s luxury portfolio and consists of beautiful properties in gateway cities and distinctive resort locations in 28 countries around the world. These elegant hotels cater to today’s sophisticated, self-assured travelers, offering them the quiet luxury they seek in a warmly authentic, relaxed atmosphere lacking in pretense. JW Marriott properties artfully provide highly crafted, anticipatory experiences that are reflective of their locale so that their guests have the time to focus on what is most important to them.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 15,863
Subsidiaries: 36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

Dubai Media City, Dubai, Dubai, 500569, AE
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

Located in the heart of each destination we call home, a stay at any Fairmont hotel is truly unforgettable. Known for grand and awe-inspiring properties and thoughtful and engaging colleagues who aim to make each and every stay a cherished and memorable experience, we have been the stage for some of the most significant moments in global history. As a part of ALL - the Accor Live Limitless Lifestyle Loyalty Program, with 90 exceptional addresses in 32 countries, we are as favored by world leaders and business travelers as we are by families and those with a penchant for luxurious travels. Fairmont Hotels stand at the intersection of elegance and culture, where significant occasions are honored and pivotal global events unfold. Wherever we are situated, our hotels become the cultural and social heart of the community; so immersed in local traditions and so deeply connected to our surroundings, Fairmont Hotels are seen as an essential part of their respective destinations.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 21,163
Subsidiaries: 120
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
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/fairmont-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
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
JW Marriott
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JW Marriott in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fairmont Hotels & Resorts in 2026.

Incident History — JW Marriott (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JW Marriott cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Fairmont Hotels & Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fairmont-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to JW Marriott company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

JW Marriott company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company.

In the current year, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company and JW Marriott company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company nor JW Marriott company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company and JW Marriott company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company nor JW Marriott company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither JW Marriott company nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither JW Marriott nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to JW Marriott company.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company employs more people globally than JW Marriott company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither JW Marriott nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds HIPAA certification.

Neither JW Marriott nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts 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