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

Comparison Overview

Murwab Hotel GroupMurwab Hotel Group
VS
MGM Resorts InternationalMGM Resorts International
Murwab Hotel Group

Murwab Hotel Group

Lusail City, PO Box 2977, [email protected], Doha, Qatar, QA, None

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://murwabhotelgroup.com/
775/1000Fair

As Qatar's leading hospitality organization, we are well practiced in welcoming guests to our luxury hotels and resorts. It gives us equal pleasure to welcome you to our website. We hope you enjoy reading about our proud heritage and our aspirations for the future.

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:455
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MGM Resorts International

MGM Resorts International

840 Grier Drive, Las Vegas, 89119, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.mgmresorts.com
100/1000Critical

The resorts and casinos of MGM Resorts International™ are some of the most famous in the world. Our 28 destinations are renowned for their winning combination of quality entertainment, luxurious facilities, and exceptional customer service. We are actively expanding o...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:26,464
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Murwab Hotel Group

Murwab Hotel Group

-
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
MGM Resorts International

MGM Resorts 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 Murwab Hotel Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

MGM Resorts International has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Murwab Hotel Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Murwab Hotel Group 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 - MGM Resorts International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MGM Resorts 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...
Murwab Hotel Group

Murwab Hotel Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MGM Resorts International

MGM Resorts International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHEGAS1776335039
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MGMCAEORAWYN1771962331
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MEREQUUNIMAEMGMGOOTOYSNOALLORARIPTIC1775528897

FAQ

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