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 PhilippinesLufthansa Technik Philippines
VS
Delta Air LinesDelta Air Lines
Lufthansa Technik Philippines

Lufthansa Technik Philippines

MacroAsia Special Economic Zone, Pasay City, Metro Manila, 1309, PH

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
760/1000Fair

LTP provides Maintenance Repair and Overhaul services for commercial aircraft. LTP has 2.700 staff employed in Manila, Cebu, Davao and Clark all Philippines. It is FAA FAR 145 and EASA JAR 145 certified repair station. Focus is providing AIRBUS A320/330/340 Base- and He...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:2,258
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Delta Air Lines

Delta Air Lines

1030 Delta Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30320-6001

Last Update: 31/08/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.delta.com
730/1000Moderate

Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) is the U.S. global airline leader in safety, innovation, reliability and customer experience. Powered by our employees around the world, Delta has for a decade led the airline industry in operational excellence while maintaining our reputatio...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:79,836
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lufthansa Technik Philippines

Lufthansa Technik Philippines

-
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
Delta Air Lines

Delta Air Lines

-
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 Philippines in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

Delta Air Lines has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - Delta Air Lines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Delta Air Lines 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 Philippines

Lufthansa Technik Philippines

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Delta Air Lines

Delta Air Lines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEL1777437123
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEL335072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84857
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in sigoden aichat up to 0.30.4. This affects an unknown function of the file src/serve.rs of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation causes uncontrolled memory allocation. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in rowboatlabs rowboat up to 0.9.1. The impacted element is the function request.text/req.json of the file apps/rowboat/app/api/composio/webhook/route.ts of the component Composio Webhook Endpoint. The manipulation results in denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 0.9.2 is sufficient to resolve this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The legacy Next.js app was deleted at 0.9.2 rather than patched, leaving no security control behind.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84852
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Reader Tools PDF Reader App 98.8 on Android. The affected element is the function ActSplashNew.handleDeeplink of the component File Handler. The manipulation of the argument _display_name leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 3.2
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-84452
SUMMARY

Windows ML CLI is a command line tool for building portable, performant, and high-quality AI models for Windows ML. Prior to 0.4.0, the src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py component exposes WinML CLI commands through a localhost HTTP API without authentication and configures the allow_origins setting as a wildcard in both src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py and src/winml/modelkit/serve/app.py. A malicious website loaded by a user can send cross-origin requests to /v1/cli/build or /v1/cli/config and set the trust_remote_code parameter to true, which is converted to the --trust-remote-code command-line flag without validation. This reaches AutoConfig.from_pretrained with trust_remote_code=True in src/winml/modelkit/loader/_autoconfig.py and imports Python code from an attacker-controlled model repository, resulting in arbitrary code execution as the server user. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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-2026-84292
SUMMARY

fast-uri serializes the port component of a URI without validating it. When recomposing the authority, the userinfo and host components are escaped but the port is concatenated verbatim, so a port value that is not a sequence of digits can inject authority delimiters, demoting the intended host to userinfo and pointing the authority at an attacker-controlled host. Both fast-uri and Node's URL read the result back as the attacker's host with no error, so re-validating the built URI does not catch it. This affects applications that build URIs from parts and assign untrusted data to the port component through the serialize, normalize, or equal functions in their object forms. The issue affects fast-uri versions before 2.4.6, from 3.0.0 before 3.1.7, and from 4.0.0 before 4.1.4. It is fixed in 2.4.6, 3.1.7, and 4.1.4, where recomposeAuthority rejects any port that is not a digit sequence per RFC 3986.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9