Comparison Overview

MGM China Holdings Limited

VS

Travel + Leisure Co.

MGM China Holdings Limited

Rm 1402 14/F China Merchants Twr, CENTRAL DISTRICT, Hong Kong, HK
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

None

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 26
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Travel + Leisure Co.

6277 Sea Harbor Dr, Orlando, Florida, US, 32821
Last Update: 2025-11-23

Travel + Leisure Co., the world's leading vacation ownership and membership travel company, provides more than six million vacations to travelers every year. The company’s extensive Vacation Ownership portfolio includes trusted and iconic vacation club brands with a combined 270+ resorts worldwide, offering quality, flexibility, and value to more than 800,000 timeshare owners. Through its Travel and Membership business line, the company unlocks even more travel inspiration and opportunities via its signature subscription travel club, Travel + Leisure GO, and pioneering timeshare exchange network, RCI. With hospitality and responsible tourism at its heart, the company’s 19,000+ dedicated associates around the globe help the company achieve its mission to put the world on vacation.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 14,402
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mgm-china-holdings-limited.jpeg
MGM China Holdings Limited
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/travelleisureco.jpeg
Travel + Leisure Co.
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
MGM China Holdings Limited
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Travel + Leisure Co.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MGM China Holdings Limited in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Travel + Leisure Co. in 2025.

Incident History — MGM China Holdings Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MGM China Holdings Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Travel + Leisure Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Travel + Leisure Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mgm-china-holdings-limited.jpeg
MGM China Holdings Limited
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/travelleisureco.jpeg
Travel + Leisure Co.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Travel + Leisure Co. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to MGM China Holdings Limited company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Travel + Leisure Co. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to MGM China Holdings Limited company.

In the current year, Travel + Leisure Co. company and MGM China Holdings Limited company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. company nor MGM China Holdings Limited company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. company nor MGM China Holdings Limited company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Travel + Leisure Co. company nor MGM China Holdings Limited company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited company nor Travel + Leisure Co. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited nor Travel + Leisure Co. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited company nor Travel + Leisure Co. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Travel + Leisure Co. company employs more people globally than MGM China Holdings Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited nor Travel + Leisure Co. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited nor Travel + Leisure Co. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited nor Travel + Leisure Co. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited nor Travel + Leisure Co. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited nor Travel + Leisure Co. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither MGM China Holdings Limited nor Travel + Leisure Co. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H