Comparison Overview

Mina Group: Restaurant RN74

VS

Hilton Hotels & Resorts

Mina Group: Restaurant RN74

None
Last Update: 2025-03-05 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

None

NAICS: 721
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 25
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Hilton Hotels & Resorts

7930 Jones Branch Drive, None, McLean, Virginia, US, 22102
Last Update: 2025-09-05 (UTC)

As the most recognized hospitality brand in the industry, guests around the globe rely on us as a trusted place for their stay. With 600+ hotels located in the worldโ€™s mostย exciting destinations, we are the place where people gather to experience exceptional hospitality,ย inspiring design, and energizing and often award winning bars and restaurants. We Are Hilton. We Are Hospitality.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 15,065
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Mina Group: Restaurant RN74
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hilton-hotels-and-resorts-brand.jpeg
Hilton Hotels & Resorts
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Mina Group: Restaurant RN74
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Hilton Hotels & Resorts
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hilton Hotels & Resorts in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Hilton Hotels & Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hilton Hotels & Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Mina Group: Restaurant RN74
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hilton-hotels-and-resorts-brand.jpeg
Hilton Hotels & Resorts
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: denial-of-service malware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Point-of-Sale System
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2014
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware (Point-of-Sale Systems)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company company demonstrates a stronger AI risk posture compared to Hilton Hotels & Resorts company company, reflecting its advanced AI governance and monitoring frameworks.

Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company has not reported any.

In the current year, Hilton Hotels & Resorts company and Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts company nor Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Hilton Hotels & Resorts company nor Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company nor Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company nor Hilton Hotels & Resorts company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Hilton Hotels & Resorts company employs more people globally than Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

FreshRSS is a free, self-hostable RSS aggregator. Versions 1.26.3 and below do not sanitize certain event handler attributes in feed content, so by finding a page that renders feed entries without CSP, it is possible to execute an XSS payload. The Allow API access authentication setting needs to be enabled by the instance administrator beforehand for the attack to work as it relies on api/query.php. An account takeover is possible by sending a change password request via the XSS payload / setting UserJS for persistence / stealing the autofill password / displaying a phishing page with a spoofed URL using history.replaceState() If the victim is an administrator, the attacker can also perform administrative actions. This issue is fixed in version 1.27.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.6 and below, go-f3 panics when it validates a "poison" messages causing Filecoin nodes consuming F3 messages to become vulnerable. A "poison" message can can cause integer overflow in the signer index validation, which can cause the whole node to crash. These malicious messages aren't self-propagating since the bug is in the validator. An attacker needs to directly send the message to all targets. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.7.

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

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.8 and below, go-f3's justification verification caching mechanism has a vulnerability where verification results are cached without properly considering the context of the message. An attacker can bypass justification verification by submitting a valid message with a correct justification and then reusing the same cached justification in contexts where it would normally be invalid. This occurs because the cached verification does not properly validate the relationship between the justification and the specific message context it's being used with. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.9.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Description

mkdocs-include-markdown-plugin is an Mkdocs Markdown includer plugin. In versions 7.1.7 and below, there is a vulnerability where unvalidated input can collide with substitution placeholders. This issue is fixed in version 7.1.8.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Description

go-mail is a comprehensive library for sending mails with Go. In versions 0.7.0 and below, due to incorrect handling of the mail.Address values when a sender- or recipient address is passed to the corresponding MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands of the SMTP client, there is a possibility of wrong address routing or even ESMTP parameter smuggling. For successful exploitation, it is required that the user's code allows for arbitrary mail address input (i. e. through a web form or similar). If only static mail addresses are used (i. e. in a config file) and the mail addresses in use do not consist of quoted local parts, this should not affect users. This issue is fixed in version 0.7.1

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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