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

Comparison Overview

Lufthansa Aviation Training GroupLufthansa Aviation Training Group
VS
Alaska AirlinesAlaska Airlines
Lufthansa Aviation Training Group

Lufthansa Aviation Training Group

Südallee 15, München-Flughafen, Bayern, 85356, DE

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

Lufthansa Aviation Training GmbH (LAT) is a subsidiary of Lufthansa Commercial Holding GmbH which is headquartered in Munich, Germany. The company emerged at the beginning of 2017 from the amalgamation of the present Lufthansa Flight Training and Swiss AviationTraining....

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:911
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Alaska Airlines

Alaska Airlines

19300 International Blvd, Seattle, 98188, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://alaskaair.jobs
766/1000Fair

We’re creating an airline people love. It begins with each Alaska Airlines employee, bringing unique strengths and energy to our work in the air and on the ground. Every day, we go beyond what’s expected and reach for the remarkable, together. Welcome to our LinkedIn ...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:13,117
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lufthansa Aviation Training Group

Lufthansa Aviation Training Group

-
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
Alaska Airlines

Alaska Airlines

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Lufthansa Aviation Training Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Alaska Airlines in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Lufthansa Aviation Training Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lufthansa Aviation Training Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Alaska Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alaska Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Lufthansa Aviation Training Group

Lufthansa Aviation Training Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Alaska Airlines

Alaska Airlines

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA