Comparison Overview

Korean Air

VS

Lufthansa

Korean Air

260, Haneul-gil, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 07505, KR
Last Update: 2025-12-29
Between 650 and 699

Leading Global carrier, a founding member of SkyTeam, operates more than 460 flights per day to 125 cities in 44 countries.

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

Lufthansa

Airportring, Frankfurt am Main, 60549, DE
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 750 and 799

Lufthansa is one of the world’s leading airlines, connecting passengers to over 200 destinations across 74 countries from our hubs in Frankfurt and Munich. As an industry pioneer, we are committed to shaping the future of sustainable aviation, investing in next-generation aircraft, cutting-edge technology, and digital solutions. Our goal is to drive excellence: not just in the sky, but across every touchpoint of the travel experience. With Lufthansa Allegris, our new long-haul experience, we are setting a new standard in premium travel, introducing a completely redesigned First, Business, Premium Economy, and Economy Class for ultimate comfort and choice. We continue to enhance the travel experience with state-of-the-art lounges, award-winning service, and onboard broadband Wi-Fi (FlyNet) across our entire long-haul fleet. Follow us for updates on how we're shaping the future of aviation. For more information, reservations or customer service, visit lufthansa.com or follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram. We look forward to welcoming you onboard. This LinkedIn page is maintained by Deutsche Lufthansa AG. We will not answer specific Customer Service queries here on LinkedIn. If you have an immediate concern or need to contact us please visit http://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/imprint

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 19,352
Subsidiaries: 49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/koreanair.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/lufthansa.jpeg
Lufthansa
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
Lufthansa
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)

No incidents recorded for Lufthansa in 2025.

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

Korean Air cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lufthansa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lufthansa cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/koreanair.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/lufthansa.jpeg
Lufthansa
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Lufthansa company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Korean Air company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

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

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

Neither Lufthansa company nor Korean Air company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Korean Air company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Lufthansa company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Korean Air company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Lufthansa company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither Korean Air nor Lufthansa holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lufthansa company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Korean Air company.

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

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

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

Neither Korean Air nor Lufthansa holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Lufthansa holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Lufthansa holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Korean Air nor Lufthansa 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