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

Comparison Overview

Mazagan Beach & Golf ResortMazagan Beach & Golf Resort
VS
AccorAccor
Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort

Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort

Route de Casablanca Km 10, El Jadida, El Jadida, 24000, MA

Last Update: 13/01/2026

View Profile
781/1000Fair

Famous for its 18-hole Gary Player Links Golf Course and its wide range of family activities, Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort offers a year-round holiday destination with fun for the whole family on the shores of the Atlantic. Mazagan is home to a variety of restaurants a...

NAICS:721
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:1,385
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Accor

Accor

82 rue Henri Farman, Issy-les-Moulineaux, Paris Region, FR, 92130

Last Update: 14/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.group.accor.com
806/1000Good

We are Accor We are more than 290,000 hospitality experts placing people at the heart of what we do, creating emotion for our guests, and nurturing passion for service and achievement beyond limits. Building on the strength of our teams and of our fully integrated ecos...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:101,371
Subsidiaries:91
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort

Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort

-
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
Accor

Accor

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Accor in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Accor 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...
Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort

Mazagan Beach & Golf Resort

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Accor

Accor

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-10681
SUMMARY

In Zephyr's userspace dynamic-objects subsystem, thread_idx_alloc() in kernel/userspace/userspace.c allocated a new thread permission index from the global _thread_idx_map[] bitmap without holding lists_lock. On SMP systems, two user-mode threads invoking the k_object_alloc(K_OBJ_THREAD) syscall concurrently can both observe the same low free bit, perform the same non-atomic RMW to clear it, and return the identical tidx. The two newly created K_OBJ_THREAD objects are then assigned the same thread_id, so the two user threads alias a single bit position in every kernel object's perms[] bitfield: any subsequent grant of access on a kernel object to one thread is implicitly a grant to the other, defeating userspace ACL isolation. A secondary lost-update window between the unlocked &=~BIT() in alloc and the locked |= BIT() in thread_idx_free() can also leak entries from the thread-index pool. The defect is reachable from any user-mode thread via the unrestricted __syscall k_object_alloc and is gated on CONFIG_USERSPACE, CONFIG_DYNAMIC_OBJECTS, and CONFIG_SMP. The flaw was introduced when the per-thread permission index was added in 2018 and is present in every release up to and including v4.4.0. Fixed by holding lists_lock across the bitmap RMW and the permissions clear (and inlining the obj_list traversal that previously took the lock itself).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-66013
SUMMARY

OpenRemote before 1.26.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the console registration API that allows unauthenticated attackers to update existing console assets by supplying a known asset identifier. Attackers can overwrite push notification tokens and console metadata without authentication or ownership validation, redirecting notifications or denying delivery to legitimate consoles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
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:L/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-2026-66012
SUMMARY

SiYuan before v3.7.2 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the POST /mcp kernel endpoint, which is gated only by a general auth check (model.CheckAuth) with no admin-role or read-only enforcement. This exposes 31 MCP tools, including a file tool with list/read/write/delete/rename/copy actions across the entire workspace. When the Publish server is enabled in anonymous mode (Conf.Publish.Enable=true and Conf.Publish.Auth.Enable=false), the Publish reverse proxy attaches an anonymous RoleReader JWT to proxied requests, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to reach /mcp. The attacker can read conf/conf.json to extract accessAuthCode, api.token, and cookieKey in plaintext, write arbitrary files in the workspace, and plant a plugin into data/plugins/ that executes with nodeIntegration:true and no contextIsolation on the next desktop launch, leading to administrator takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66011
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-27 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the magick command-line interface when invalid options are provided. Attackers can trigger memory exhaustion by repeatedly supplying malformed command-line arguments to consume system resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64529
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: qat - remove unused character device and IOCTLs The QAT driver exposes a character device (qat_adf_ctl) with IOCTLs for device configuration, start, stop, status query and enumeration. These IOCTLs are not part of any public uAPI header and have no known in-tree or out-of-tree users. Device lifecycle is already managed via sysfs. The ioctl interface also increases the attack surface and is the subject of a number of bug reports. Remove the character device, the IOCTL definitions, and the related data structures (adf_dev_status_info, adf_user_cfg_key_val, adf_user_cfg_section, adf_user_cfg_ctl_data). Drop the now-unused adf_cfg_user.h header and strip adf_ctl_drv.c down to the minimal module_init/module_exit hooks for workqueue, AER, and crypto/compression algorithm registration. Clean up leftover dead code that was only reachable from the removed IOCTL paths: adf_cfg_del_all(), adf_devmgr_verify_id(), adf_devmgr_get_num_dev(), adf_devmgr_get_dev_by_id(), adf_get_vf_real_id() and the unused ADF_CFG macros. Additionally, drop the entry associated to QAT IOCTLs in ioctl-number.rst.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA