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

Comparison Overview

Lufthansa CityLine GmbHLufthansa CityLine GmbH
VS
British AirwaysBritish Airways
Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Südallee 15, München Flughafen, Bayern, 85356, DE

Last Update: 01/03/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Lufthansa CityLine ist eine hundertprozentige Konzerngesellschaft der Deutschen Lufthansa AG. Rund 8,2 Millionen Passagiere fliegen zurzeit pro Jahr mit Lufthansa CityLine. Unsere Flotte besteht aus modernen und umweltfreundlichen Flugzeugen der Typen Embraer 190, Bomba...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:623
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
British Airways

British Airways

Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UB7 0GA, GB

Last Update: 15/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ba.com
733/1000Moderate

As a global airline and the UK’s flag carrier, British Airways has been flying its customers to where they need to be for more than 100 years. The airline connects Britain with the world and the world with Britain, operating one of the most extensive international sched...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:32,009
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

-
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
British Airways

British Airways

-
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 CityLine GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

British Airways has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Lufthansa CityLine GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lufthansa CityLine GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - British Airways (X = Date, Y = Severity)

British Airways 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...
Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
British Airways

British Airways

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BRI1778826314
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MOVBRIMGM1770602315
🔒 Incident : Breach
BRI0112623

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-9044
SUMMARY

An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the VPN module of TP-Link AXE75 V1 routers. This vulnerability allows an adjacent, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the device by importing a specially crafted VPN client configuration file. The issue arises from improper filtering of special characters.  Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may enable an attacker to gain full control of the affected device, potentially compromising configuration integrity, network security, and service availability.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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-2026-54909
SUMMARY

pion/stun is a Go implementation of STUN. Prior to 3.1.3, XORMappedAddress.GetFromAs can panic while parsing a malformed short XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in STUN or ICE Binding-response parsing paths, allowing remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 3.1.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54785
SUMMARY

gemini-bridge is a lightweight MCP server bridging AI agents to Google's Gemini AI via the official CLI. From 1.0.0 until 1.3.1, consult_gemini_with_files in inline mode read any file path supplied in the files argument without confining it to the working directory, then forwarded the contents to the Gemini CLI. Because the caller also controls query, the file contents are echoed back through the Gemini round-trip (and sent to Google), making this an arbitrary local file read. This issue is fixed in version 1.3.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5
CVE-2026-54768
SUMMARY

WPGraphQL provides a GraphQL API for WordPress sites. From 2.0.0 until 2.15.1, the deprecated user field on SendPasswordResetEmailPayload lets an unauthenticated caller distinguish existing author-class accounts through the sendPasswordResetEmail mutation and obtain public profile fields. This issue is fixed in version 2.15.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53573
SUMMARY

GeoNetwork is a catalog application to manage spatially referenced resources. From 3.12.0 until 4.2.16 and 4.4.11, unsafe redirect validation in GeonetworkOAuth2LoginAuthenticationFilter and KeycloakAuthenticationProcessingFilter permits an attacker-controlled external redirect after login. This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.16 and 4.4.11.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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