Comparison Overview

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

VS

JetBlue

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, None, Amstelveen, None, NL, 1182 GP
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://klmf.ly/R05uLo

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
4
Attack type number
2
View Profile

JetBlue

27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, New York, 11101, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.jetblue.com

When JetBlue first took flight in February 2000, our founding goal was to bring humanity back to air travel, and over two decades later, we still put our customers, crewmembers and communities at the center of everything we do. Before we even had aircraft to fly, our founders selected five values to guide us, which are safety, caring, integrity, passion and fun. These core values shape our culture and empower our 23,000 crewmembers to deliver a meaningful JetBlue experience to more than 40 million customers that fly with us each year to more than 100 cities across the United States, Latin America, Caribbean, Canada and Europe. We’re proud to be New York's Hometown Airline®, and a leading carrier in Boston, Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood, Los Angeles, Orlando, and San Juan. Please note: If you have concerns or complaints that require response, please visit http://jetblue.com/chat.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 16,257
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/jetblue-airways.jpeg
JetBlue
—
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
JetBlue
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 61.29% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JetBlue in 2025.

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 — JetBlue (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JetBlue 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
Attack Vector: Third-party system compromise
Motivation: Potential misuse in targeted scams
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jetblue-airways.jpeg
JetBlue
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

In the current year, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported more cyber incidents than JetBlue company.

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

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other JetBlue company has not reported such incidents publicly.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while JetBlue company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor JetBlue holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor JetBlue holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor JetBlue holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor JetBlue holds HIPAA certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor JetBlue holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A weakness has been identified in itsourcecode Online Pet Shop Management System 1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /pet1/addcnp.php. This manipulation of the argument cnpname causes sql injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Published
Date
2025-12-13
Updated
Date
2025-12-13
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
References
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Tenda AX9 22.03.01.46. This affects the function image_check of the component httpd. The manipulation results in use of weak hash. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Published
Date
2025-12-13
Updated
Date
2025-12-13
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 2.6
Severity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
References
Description

A weakness has been identified in code-projects Student File Management System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /admin/update_student.php. This manipulation of the argument stud_id causes sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Published
Date
2025-12-13
Updated
Date
2025-12-13
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
References
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in code-projects Student File Management System 1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /admin/save_user.php. The manipulation of the argument firstname results in sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Published
Date
2025-12-13
Updated
Date
2025-12-13
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
References
Description

A vulnerability was identified in code-projects Student File Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /admin/update_user.php. The manipulation of the argument user_id leads to sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Published
Date
2025-12-13
Updated
Date
2025-12-13
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
References