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

Comparison Overview

Lufthansa Technik Budapest LtdLufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd
VS
KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesKLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Lufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd

Lufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd

undefined, undefined, undefined, H-1185, HU

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile

A Lufthansa Technik Budapest a Lufthansa-csoport részeként 2001 óta foglalkozik a világ legismertebb utasszállító repülőgép típusainak karbantartásával és javításával a Liszt Ferenc Nemzetközi Repülőtéren. A légi közlekedés elterjedésével arányosan nőtt az igény a repül...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:184
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, Amstelveen, 1182 GP, NL

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://klmf.ly/R05uLo
731/1000Moderate

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:22,827
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd

Lufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd

-
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
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch 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 Technik Budapest Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Lufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 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 Technik Budapest Ltd

Lufthansa Technik Budapest Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM304080925
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM2289123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1