Comparison Overview

Mina Group: Restaurant RN74

VS

Taj Hotels

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

Taj Hotels

9th Floor, Express Towers,, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400 021, IN
Last Update: 2025-03-07 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900

Established in 1903, Taj is The Indian Hotels Company Limitedโ€™s (IHCL) iconic brand for the worldโ€™s most discerning travellers seeking luxury and authentic experiences. Taj has been rated as Indiaโ€™s Strongest Brand across all sectors for an unprecedented fourth time and also as the Worldโ€™s Strongest Hotel Brand for the third consecutive year in 2024 by Brand Finance. From landmark city addresses to enchanting jungle safaris, and from idyllic resorts to authentic living Grand Palaces, each Taj hotel offers an unrivalled fusion of warm Indian hospitality, world-class service and modern luxury. Taj's unique portfolio comprises hotels across India, North America, United Kingdom, Africa, Middle East, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Nepal.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 22,355
Subsidiaries: 73
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

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/taj-hotels.jpeg
Taj Hotels
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
Taj Hotels
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 Taj Hotels 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€” Taj Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Taj Hotels 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/taj-hotels.jpeg
Taj Hotels
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Disruption, Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Taj Hotels company has reported more cyber incidents than Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company.

Taj Hotels company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Taj Hotels company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Taj Hotels company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mina Group: Restaurant RN74 company.

Taj Hotels 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