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

Comparison Overview

Marriott InternationalMarriott International
VS
ITC Hotels LimitedITC Hotels Limited
Marriott International

Marriott International

10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, MD, US, 20817

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.marriott.com
707/1000Moderate

Marriott International, Inc. is based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, and encompasses a portfolio of approximately 9,000 properties across more than 30 leading brands in 141 countries and territories. Its heritage can be traced to a root beer stand opened in Washington, D....

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:213,175
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Limited, Hotels Division - Headquarters, ITC Green Centre 10, Institutional Area Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana, IN, 122001

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
806/1000Good

Established in 1975, ITC Hotels Limited has grown to encompass over 140+ hotels across 90+ destinations, solidifying its presence in the Indian subcontinent ITC Hotels seamlessly blends India’s rich tradition of hospitality with globally benchmarked services, offering ...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:12,682
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Marriott International

Marriott International

-
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
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

-
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 Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

Marriott International has 32.43% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ITC Hotels Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Marriott International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marriott International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ITC Hotels Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ITC Hotels Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Marriott International

Marriott International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHEGAS1776335039
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR0802208101125
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR13023722
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3