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

Comparison Overview

Munich AirportMunich Airport
VS
KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesKLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Munich Airport

Munich Airport

Nordallee 25, München-Flughafen, Bayern, DE, 85356

Last Update: 08/01/2026

View Profile
760/1000Fair

Fascinatingly diverse. The Employer Munich Airport Dynamic growth, strong partnerships, cutting-edge innovations: Munich is one of the world´s most successful airports. That is down to our employees, who work with passion, appeal and farsightedness. We will continue to...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:2,463
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, Amstelveen, 1182 GP, NL

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://klmf.ly/R05uLo
731/1000Moderate

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:22,827
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Munich Airport

Munich Airport

-
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
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

-
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 Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Munich Airport in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Munich Airport (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Munich Airport 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 - KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 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...
Munich Airport

Munich Airport

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM304080925
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM2289123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84483
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo through commit 9c39d8c8 contains an incomplete authentication bypass in encryptPass.json.php that allows unauthenticated attackers to compute valid HMAC tokens using the public site URL and current time. Attackers can forge authentication tokens by computing hash_hmac with the site's base URL as the key and submit arbitrary passwords to receive encrypted hashes, enabling offline precomputation attacks against stolen password databases.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-84482
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo through commit 9c39d8c8 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the get_domain() and isSameDomain() functions that fail to properly validate referer origins. Attackers can forge requests from sibling subdomains or unparseable long-gTLD origins to perform administrative ObjectYPT writes including live server configuration changes.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-84481
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo through 30.0 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MobileManager plugin getConfiguration endpoint that returns sensitive configuration data to unauthenticated visitors. Attackers can send an unauthenticated GET request to plugin/MobileManager/getConfiguration.json.php to obtain TLS private key file paths, socket configuration details, platform version, and debug flags enabling further targeted attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-84480
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo fails to validate password recovery token expiration in userRecoverPassSave.json.php, allowing attackers to use expired tokens to reset account passwords indefinitely. Attackers who obtain a recovery token can use it at any time to change the target account's password and gain full account access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84479
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo (current e01e41ecc and earlier) makes three login-time security controls depend solely on the client-supplied User-Agent header. The isAVideoEncoder()/isAVideoMobileApp() checks match HTTP_USER_AGENT against a hardcoded literal ("AVideoEncoder"/"AVideoMobileApp") with no IP check or shared secret. An attacker who submits valid credentials and sets User-Agent: AVideoEncoder bypasses two-factor authentication, skips brute-force captcha escalation, and avoids being recorded in the login/device audit history. No patch is available at the time of publication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9