Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Korean AirKorean Air
VS
AirAsiaAirAsia
Korean Air

Korean Air

260, Haneul-gil, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 07505, KR

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://koreanair.com
598/1000Very Poor

Serving the world for more than 50 years, Korean Air is one of the world's top 20 airlines, carrying more than 27 million passengers in 2019, pre-COVID. With its global hub at Incheon International Airport (ICN), the airline serves 120 cities in 43 countries on five con...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:3,404
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
AirAsia

AirAsia

AirAsia Berhad, RedQ, Jalan Pekeliling 5, KLIA2, Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, MY, 64000

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.airasia.com
636/1000Poor

It all starts here. 23 years ago, a dream took flight - shaping and forever changing the travel industry in Asia. The idea was simple: Make flying affordable for everyone. We made that dream happen. We started an airline in 2001. Today, we’ve evolved to become somethi...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:14,245
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Korean Air

Korean Air

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
AirAsia

AirAsia

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

Korean Air has 55.16% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

AirAsia has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Korean Air (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Korean Air cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - AirAsia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AirAsia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Korean Air

Korean Air

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MADMICKORORA1773232260
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KORKORSCH1767123879
AirAsia

AirAsia

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MALAIR1772151934
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AIR1013221122

FAQ

Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Korean Air company and AirAsia company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Korean Air and AirAsia, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Korean Air and AirAsia, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Korean Air or AirAsia ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Korean Air or AirAsia ?
Between Korean Air and AirAsia, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Korean Air and AirAsia, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8