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

Comparison Overview

Malaysia AirlinesMalaysia Airlines
VS
LufthansaLufthansa
Malaysia Airlines

Malaysia Airlines

Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Sepang, 64000, MY

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
685/1000Weak

Malaysia Airlines is the national carrier of Malaysia, serving 40,000 guests on 330 flights to more than 50 destinations daily. Malaysia Airlines operates flights from its home base, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, and offers connectivity across the globe; includ...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:9,082
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Lufthansa

Lufthansa

Airportring, Frankfurt am Main, 60549, DE

Last Update: 08/08/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://lufthansa.com
783/1000Fair

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-generat...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:19,452
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Malaysia Airlines

Malaysia 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
Lufthansa

Lufthansa

-
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)

Malaysia Airlines has 52.83% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lufthansa in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

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

Lufthansa 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...
Malaysia Airlines

Malaysia Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MALAIR1772151934
Lufthansa

Lufthansa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8