Comparison Overview

Marriott Hotels

VS

Landry's

Marriott Hotels

10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, 20817, US
Last Update: 2026-01-16

With over 500 properties worldwide, Marriott Hotels has reimagined hospitality to exceed the expectations of business, group, and leisure travelers. Marriott Hotels, Marriott’s flagship brand of quality-tier, full-service hotels and resorts, provides consistent, dependable and genuinely caring experiences to guests on their terms. Marriott is a brilliant host to guests who effortlessly blend life and work, and who are inspired by how modern travel enhances them both. Our hotels offer warm, professional service; sophisticated yet functional guest room design; lobby spaces that facilitate working, dining and socializing; restaurants and bars serving international cuisine prepared simply and from the freshest ingredients; meeting and event spaces and services that are gold standard; and expansive, 24-hour fitness facilities.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 42,337
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Landry's

1510 West Loop South, Houston, 77027, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Landry's is a multinational, diversified restaurant, hospitality, gaming, and entertainment leader based in Houston, Texas. The company operates more than 600 establishments around the world, including well-known concepts, such as Landry’s Seafood House, Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., Rainforest Cafe, Morton’s The Steakhouse, The Oceanaire Seafood Room, McCormick & Schmick’s, Chart House, Saltgrass Steak House, Del Frisco’s Double Eagle Steakhouse, Palm Restaurants, and Mastro’s Restaurants. The company also operates a group of signature restaurants, including Vic & Anthony’s Steakhouse, Grotto, Willie G’s, and others. The gaming division includes the renowned Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino concept, with locations in Las Vegas and Laughlin, NV, Atlantic City, NJ, Biloxi, MS, and Lake Charles, LA. The entertainment and hospitality divisions encompass popular destinations, including the Galveston Island Historic Pleasure Pier, Kemah Boardwalk, Aquarium Restaurants, and other exciting attractions, coupled with deluxe accommodations throughout the Houston and Galveston area, including The Post Oak Hotel at Uptown Houston, Westin Houston Downtown, Kemah Boardwalk Inn and The San Luis Resort, including the Hilton Galveston Island Resort and Holiday Inn Galveston on the Beach located on Galveston Island.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 12,566
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marriott_hotels_resorts.jpeg
Marriott Hotels
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/landry's-restaurants.jpeg
Landry's
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
Marriott Hotels
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Landry's
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marriott Hotels in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Landry's in 2026.

Incident History — Marriott Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marriott Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Landry's (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Landry's cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marriott_hotels_resorts.jpeg
Marriott Hotels
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/landry's-restaurants.jpeg
Landry's
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Landry's company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Marriott Hotels company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Marriott Hotels company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Landry's company has not reported any.

In the current year, Landry's company and Marriott Hotels company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Landry's company nor Marriott Hotels company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Marriott Hotels company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Landry's company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Landry's company nor Marriott Hotels company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Marriott Hotels company nor Landry's company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Marriott Hotels nor Landry's holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Landry's company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Marriott Hotels company.

Marriott Hotels company employs more people globally than Landry's company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Marriott Hotels nor Landry's holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Marriott Hotels nor Landry's holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Marriott Hotels nor Landry's holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Marriott Hotels nor Landry's holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Marriott Hotels nor Landry's holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Marriott Hotels nor Landry's 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