Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

M Social Hotel New York DowntownM Social Hotel New York Downtown
VS
Marriott InternationalMarriott International
M Social Hotel New York Downtown

M Social Hotel New York Downtown

55 Church Street, New York, New York, US, 10007

Last Update: 25/03/2026

View Profile

With 569 newly transformed guest rooms, 98 suites featuring unrivaled stunning views, and 3,550 sq. ft. of modern meeting and event spaces, MSocial Downtown is redefining what it means to stay, meet, and connect in Downtown Manhattan. Coming February 2025, an all-new lo...

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

Marriott International

10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, MD, US, 20817

Last Update: 03/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.marriott.com
712/1000Moderate

Marriott International, Inc. is based in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, and encompasses a portfolio of approximately 9,000 properties across more than 30 leading brands in 141 countries and territories. Its heritage can be traced to a root beer stand opened in Washington, D....

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:213,175
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
M Social Hotel New York Downtown

M Social Hotel New York Downtown

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Marriott International

Marriott International

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for M Social Hotel New York Downtown in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

Marriott International has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - M Social Hotel New York Downtown (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M Social Hotel New York Downtown cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Marriott International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marriott International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
M Social Hotel New York Downtown

M Social Hotel New York Downtown

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Marriott International

Marriott International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHEGAS1776335039
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR0802208101125
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR13023722

FAQ

Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown company and Marriott International company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown and Marriott International, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown and Marriott International, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - M Social Hotel New York Downtown or Marriott International ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - M Social Hotel New York Downtown or Marriott International ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown and Marriott International, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between M Social Hotel New York Downtown and Marriott International, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8