Comparison Overview

Mitchells & Butlers PLC

VS

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

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

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

Dubai Media City, Dubai, Dubai, 500569, AE
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

Located in the heart of each destination we call home, a stay at any Fairmont hotel is truly unforgettable. Known for grand and awe-inspiring properties and thoughtful and engaging colleagues who aim to make each and every stay a cherished and memorable experience, we have been the stage for some of the most significant moments in global history. As a part of ALL - the Accor Live Limitless Lifestyle Loyalty Program, with 90 exceptional addresses in 32 countries, we are as favored by world leaders and business travelers as we are by families and those with a penchant for luxurious travels. Fairmont Hotels stand at the intersection of elegance and culture, where significant occasions are honored and pivotal global events unfold. Wherever we are situated, our hotels become the cultural and social heart of the community; so immersed in local traditions and so deeply connected to our surroundings, Fairmont Hotels are seen as an essential part of their respective destinations.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 21,163
Subsidiaries: 115
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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/fairmont-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
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
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
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 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts 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 — Fairmont Hotels & Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fairmont 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/mitchells-&-butlers.jpeg
Mitchells & Butlers PLC
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fairmont-hotels-and-resorts.jpeg
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company and Mitchells & Butlers PLC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company nor Mitchells & Butlers PLC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Neither Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company nor Mitchells & Butlers PLC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC company nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mitchells & Butlers PLC company.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts company employs more people globally than Mitchells & Butlers PLC company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mitchells & Butlers PLC nor Fairmont Hotels & Resorts 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