Comparison Overview

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

VS

Air France

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, None, Amstelveen, None, NL, 1182 GP
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749

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 major cities and economic centres all over the world. Through our LinkedIn account, we make sure you are kept up-to-date about KLM and other developments in the air transport industry.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 22,391
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Air France

45 , rue de Paris, None, Roissy CDG, None, FR, 95747
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Depuis 1933, la compagnie Air France porte haut les couleurs de la France à travers le monde entier. Avec une activité, répartie entre le transport aérien de passagers, le fret, la maintenance et l’entretien aéronautique, Air France est un acteur majeur du secteur aérien. Plus de 45 000 collaborateurs se mobilisent au quotidien pour proposer à chaque client, une expérience de voyage unique. Air France, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines et Transavia forment le Groupe Air France-KLM. Le Groupe s’appuie sur la force de ses hubs de Paris-Charles de Gaulle et d’Amsterdam-Schiphol pour offrir un vaste réseau international. Son programme de fidélité Flying Blue rassemble plus de 17 millions d’adhérents. Air France et KLM sont membres de l’alliance SkyTeam qui compte au total, 19 compagnies aériennes. Air France place la santé et la sécurité de ses clients et de ses personnels au cœur de ses préoccupations. Avec Air France Protect, son engagement sanitaire, la compagnie a instauré les mesures sanitaires les plus strictes pour un voyage en toute sécurité. Air France s’est fixé des objectifs ambitieux en matière de développement durable et travaille à réduire et compenser ses émissions de CO2. Dans le cadre du programme Horizon 2030, la compagnie s’est engagée à réduire de 50% ses émissions de CO2 par passager-kilomètre d’ici à 2030 à travers des investissements importants en faveur du renouvellement de sa flotte par des avions de nouvelle génération, l’utilisation de solutions innovantes pour réduire sa consommation de carburant ou encore l’utilisation progressive de carburants alternatifs durables. Plus d'informations sur : corporate.airfrance.com

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 29,688
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch 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/air-france.jpeg
Air France
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
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Air France
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has 112.77% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

Air France has 112.77% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Air France (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Air France cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: AI-Amplified Social Engineering, Third-Party Customer Service Platform Exploitation, Voice Cloning, Deepfake Impersonation
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Identity Theft, Loyalty Program Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party system compromise
Motivation: Potential misuse in targeted scams
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/air-france.jpeg
Air France
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: AI-Amplified Social Engineering, Third-Party Customer Service Platform Exploitation, Voice Cloning, Deepfake Impersonation
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Identity Theft, Loyalty Program Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party service provider compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Air France company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Air France company.

In the current year, Air France and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Neither Air France company nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Air France company and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Both Air France company and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company nor Air France company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Air France holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Air France company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company.

Air France company employs more people globally than KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Air France holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Air France holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Air France holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Air France holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Air France holds HIPAA certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Air France holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A weakness has been identified in codingWithElias School Management System up to f1ac334bfd89ae9067cc14dea12ec6ff3f078c01. Affected is an unknown function of the file /student-view.php of the component Edit Student Info Page. This manipulation of the argument First Name causes cross site scripting. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product follows a rolling release approach for continuous delivery, so version details for affected or updated releases are not provided. Other parameters might be affected as well. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 3.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

By providing a command-line argument starting with a semi-colon ; to an API endpoint created by the EnhancedCommandExecutor class of the HexStrike AI MCP server, the resultant composed command is executed directly in the context of the MCP server’s normal privilege; typically, this is root. There is no attempt to sanitize these arguments in the default configuration of this MCP server at the affected version (as of commit 2f3a5512 in September of 2025).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

A weakness has been identified in winston-dsouza Ecommerce-Website up to 87734c043269baac0b4cfe9664784462138b1b2e. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /includes/header_menu.php of the component GET Parameter Handler. Executing manipulation of the argument Error can lead to cross site scripting. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product implements a rolling release for ongoing delivery, which means version information for affected or updated releases is unavailable. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

A security flaw has been discovered in Qualitor 8.20/8.24. Affected by this vulnerability is the function eval of the file /html/st/stdeslocamento/request/getResumo.php. Performing manipulation of the argument passageiros results in code injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

A vulnerability was identified in Scada-LTS up to 2.7.8.1. Affected is the function Common.getHomeDir of the file br/org/scadabr/vo/exporter/ZIPProjectManager.java of the component Project Import. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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