Comparison Overview

Mandarin Oriental

VS

Caesars Entertainment

Mandarin Oriental

18 Westlands Road, Quarry Bay, ., HK
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group is the award-winning owner and operator of some of the world’s most luxurious hotels, resorts and residences. Having grown from its Asian roots into a global brand, the Group now operates 43 hotels, 12 residences and 23 exclusive homes in 26 countries and territories, with each property reflecting the Group’s oriental heritage, local culture and unique design. Mandarin Oriental has a strong pipeline of hotels and residences under development and is a member of the Jardine Matheson Group. Mandarin Oriental’s aim is to be recognised widely as the best global luxury hotel group, providing 21st-century luxury with oriental charm in each of its hotels. This will be achieved by investing in the Group’s exceptional facilities and people while maximizing profitability and long-term shareholder value. The Group regularly receives recognition and awards for outstanding service and quality management. The strategy of the Group is to open the hotels currently under development while continuing to seek further selective opportunities for expansion around the world. The parent company, Mandarin Oriental International Limited, is incorporated in Bermuda and has a premium listing on the London Stock Exchange, with secondary listings in Bermuda and Singapore. Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group International Limited, which operates from Hong Kong, manages the activities of the Group’s hotels. Mandarin Oriental is a member of the Jardine Matheson Group.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 13,845
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Caesars Entertainment

One Caesars Palace Drive, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89109
Last Update: 2026-01-16

Caesars Entertainment, Inc. is the largest casino-entertainment Company in the U.S. and one of the world's most diversified casino-entertainment providers. Since its beginning in Reno, NV, in 1937, Caesars Entertainment, Inc. has grown through development of new resorts, expansions and acquisitions. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.'s resorts operate primarily under the Caesars®, Harrah's®, Horseshoe®, and Eldorado® brand names. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. offers diversified gaming, entertainment and hospitality amenities, one-of-a-kind destinations, and a full suite of mobile and online gaming and sports betting experiences. All tied to its industry-leading Caesars Rewards loyalty program, the Company focuses on building value with its guests through a unique combination of impeccable service, operational excellence and technology leadership. Caesars is committed to its employees, suppliers, communities and the environment through its PEOPLE PLANET PLAY framework. 21+Gambling Problem? 21+ to gamble. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-522-4700 or text 800GAM. For more information, please visit. www.caesars.com/corporate. Caesars Entertainment promotes a collaborative culture where accountability, passion, and idea sharing create a foundation for innovation and continuous improvement in the casino entertainment industry. Caesars is always looking for intellectually-curious professionals who are aligned with our values, motivated by meritocracy, and inspired by our commitment to our guests, team members, communities, and environment. Learn what it’s like to join a diverse by design team at Caesars Entertainment and check out our open jobs.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 18,062
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mandarin-oriental-hotel-group.jpeg
Mandarin Oriental
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/caesars-entertainment-inc.jpeg
Caesars Entertainment
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Mandarin Oriental
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Caesars Entertainment
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mandarin Oriental in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Caesars Entertainment in 2026.

Incident History — Mandarin Oriental (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mandarin Oriental cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Caesars Entertainment (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Caesars Entertainment cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mandarin-oriental-hotel-group.jpeg
Mandarin Oriental
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2021
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2014
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Malware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/caesars-entertainment-inc.jpeg
Caesars Entertainment
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Social Engineering
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Attack on IT support vendor
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party IT vendor breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Mandarin Oriental company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Caesars Entertainment company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Caesars Entertainment company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Mandarin Oriental company.

In the current year, Caesars Entertainment company and Mandarin Oriental company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Mandarin Oriental company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Caesars Entertainment company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Caesars Entertainment company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Mandarin Oriental company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Caesars Entertainment company and Mandarin Oriental company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither Mandarin Oriental company nor Caesars Entertainment company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mandarin Oriental nor Caesars Entertainment holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mandarin Oriental company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Caesars Entertainment company.

Caesars Entertainment company employs more people globally than Mandarin Oriental company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Mandarin Oriental nor Caesars Entertainment holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mandarin Oriental nor Caesars Entertainment holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mandarin Oriental nor Caesars Entertainment holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mandarin Oriental nor Caesars Entertainment holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mandarin Oriental nor Caesars Entertainment holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mandarin Oriental nor Caesars Entertainment holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N