Comparison Overview

Mitchells & Butlers PLC

VS

JW Marriott

Mitchells & Butlers PLC

27 Fleet Street, Birmingham, B31JP, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Established in 1898, we're one of the largest operators of restaurants, pubs and bars in the UK, providing a wide choice of eating and drinking-out experiences through our well-known brands and delivering great service, quality and value for money to our guests.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 10,677
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

JW Marriott

None
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 800 and 849

No loud pretense. No excess formalities. Just understated elegance you’ll feel the moment you walk into one of over 80 worldwide destinations. JW Marriott is part of Marriott International’s luxury portfolio and consists of beautiful properties in gateway cities and distinctive resort locations in 28 countries around the world. These elegant hotels cater to today’s sophisticated, self-assured travelers, offering them the quiet luxury they seek in a warmly authentic, relaxed atmosphere lacking in pretense. JW Marriott properties artfully provide highly crafted, anticipatory experiences that are reflective of their locale so that their guests have the time to focus on what is most important to them.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 15,169
Subsidiaries: 36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mitchells-&-butlers.jpeg
Mitchells & Butlers PLC
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/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
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
Mitchells & Butlers PLC
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
JW Marriott
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mitchells & Butlers PLC in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JW Marriott in 2025.

Incident History — Mitchells & Butlers PLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mitchells & Butlers PLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

JW Marriott cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mitchells-&-butlers.jpeg
Mitchells & Butlers PLC
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jw_marriott.jpeg
JW Marriott
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2022
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

JW Marriott company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Mitchells & Butlers PLC company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

JW Marriott company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Mitchells & Butlers PLC company has not reported any.

In the current year, JW Marriott company has reported more cyber incidents than Mitchells & Butlers PLC company.

Neither JW Marriott company nor Mitchells & Butlers PLC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

JW Marriott company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Mitchells & Butlers PLC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither JW Marriott company nor Mitchells & Butlers PLC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC company nor JW Marriott company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor JW Marriott holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

JW Marriott company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mitchells & Butlers PLC company.

JW Marriott company employs more people globally than Mitchells & Butlers PLC company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor JW Marriott holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor JW Marriott holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor JW Marriott holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor JW Marriott holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor JW Marriott holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor JW Marriott 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