Comparison Overview

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

VS

Qantas

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

Qantas

10 Bourke Road, None, Mascot, NSW, AU, 2020
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 0 and 549

We would like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the local lands and waterways on which we live, work and fly. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.   Spirit is everything to us, and joining the Qantas team means bringing your spirit to ours. We have over 26,000 exceptional employees, and every year we fly millions of customers around Australia and the world – together.    If you hop on board with the team, you'll experience a workplace where creativity, diversity and innovation are encouraged. We aim to give every member of the Qantas Group the support to follow their dreams, face new challenges, and let their future take flight. Ultimately, people are our priority – those who work for us and those who travel with us.  For the latest information on the cyber incident: https://bit.ly/3I7jNfM Member of the oneworld Alliance. Please read the Qantas LinkedIn House Rules at http://bit.ly/QFhouserules

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 17,358
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
10
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

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/qantas.jpeg
Qantas
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
Qantas
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)

Qantas has 2027.66% 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 — Qantas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Qantas 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/qantas.jpeg
Qantas
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: exploitation of enterprise software vulnerability, dark web data leak
Motivation: financial gain (ransom), data monetization on dark web
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Vishing, Stolen OAuth Tokens, Salesforce Instance Exploitation (Salesloft’s Drift AI Chat Integration), Dark Web Data Leak Site (DLS), Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Reputation Damage, Regulatory Pressure (GDPR Fines), Disruption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

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

Qantas company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Qantas holds HIPAA certification.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines nor Qantas 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