Comparison Overview

Korean Air

VS

Qantas

Korean Air

260, Haneul-gil, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 07505, KR
Last Update: 2025-12-29
Between 750 and 799

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 continents with a modern fleet of 155 aircraft and over 20,000 professional employees. Korean Air's outstanding performance and commitment to the highest level of safety and customer service was further highlighted during the pandemic; the airline was granted numerous awards including 2021 Airline of the Year and 2022 Cargo Operator of the Year by Air Transport World, and a 5-star COVID safety rating from Skytrax. Korean Air is a founding member of the SkyTeam airline alliance, and has grown into one of the largest transpacific airlines through its joint venture with Delta Air Lines. Dedicated to providing Excellence in Flight, Korean Air’s vision is to be a respected leader in the world airline community. For more information about Korean Air, please visit www.koreanair.com, Korean Air Newsroom, facebook.com/KoreanAir, instagram.com/KoreanAirworld and Twitter@KoreanAir_KE.

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

Qantas

10 Bourke Road, None, Mascot, NSW, AU, 2020
Last Update: 2025-12-27
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
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/korean-air.jpeg
Korean Air
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
Korean Air
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)

Korean Air has 31.58% 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 426.32% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Korean Air 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/korean-air.jpeg
Korean Air
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qantas.jpeg
Qantas
Incidents

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:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Salesforce Vulnerability, Unauthorized Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Extortion, Reputation Damage, Data Theft for Dark Web Sales
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Credential Abuse, Third-Party Vulnerability (Salesforce)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Extortion), Data Theft for Dark Web Sale
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Korean Air 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 Korean Air company.

In the current year, Qantas company has reported more cyber incidents than Korean Air company.

Qantas company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Korean Air company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Qantas company and Korean Air company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Both Qantas company and Korean Air company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither Korean Air company nor Qantas company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Korean Air nor Qantas holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Qantas company and Korean Air company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Qantas company employs more people globally than Korean Air company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither Korean Air nor Qantas holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Qantas holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Qantas holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Qantas holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Qantas holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Qantas holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. Affected is an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPUserSetting. Performing manipulation of the argument delno results in stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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 has been found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. This impacts an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPServer. Such manipulation of the argument ip1 leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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 flaw has been found in omec-project UPF up to 2.1.3-dev. This affects the function handleSessionEstablishmentRequest of the file /pfcpiface/pfcpiface/messages_session.go of the component PFCP Session Establishment Request Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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 detected in floooh sokol up to 16cbcc864012898793cd2bc57f802499a264ea40. The impacted element is the function _sg_pipeline_desc_defaults in the library sokol_gfx.h. The manipulation results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit is now public and may be used. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The patch is identified as 5d11344150973f15e16d3ec4ee7550a73fb995e0. It is advisable to implement a patch to correct this issue.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in PbootCMS up to 3.2.12. The affected element is the function get_user_ip of the file core/function/handle.php of the component Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument X-Forwarded-For leads to use of less trusted source. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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