Comparison Overview

CWT

VS

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.

CWT

701 Carlson Parkway, None, Minnetonka, Minnesota, US, 55305
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

CWT is a global business travel and meetings specialist, with whom companies and governments partner to keep their people connected, in traditional business locations and some of the most remote and inaccessible parts of the globe. A private company – owned through funds managed by a group of leading global financial institutions including Barings, MacKay Shields, and Monarch Alternative Capital – CWT provides its customers’ employees with innovative technology and an efficient, safe and sustainable travel experience.

NAICS: 5615
NAICS Definition: Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees: 12,937
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.

7665 Corporate Center Drive, Miami, FL, US, 33126
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: NCLH) is a leading global cruise company which operates Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises. With a combined fleet of 32 ships and approximately 66,500 berths, NCLH offers itineraries to approximately 700 destinations worldwide. NCLH expects to add 13 additional ships across its three brands through 2036, which will add approximately 41,000 berths to its fleet.

NAICS: 5615
NAICS Definition: Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees: 16,771
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mycwt.jpeg
CWT
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/norwegian-cruise-line-holdings.jpeg
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
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
CWT
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CWT in 2025.

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. in 2025.

Incident History — CWT (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CWT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mycwt.jpeg
CWT
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/norwegian-cruise-line-holdings.jpeg
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to CWT company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

CWT company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company has not reported any.

In the current year, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company and CWT company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company nor CWT company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company nor CWT company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company nor CWT company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

CWT company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CWT nor Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CWT company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. company employs more people globally than CWT company, reflecting its scale as a Travel Arrangements.

Neither CWT nor Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CWT nor Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CWT nor Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CWT nor Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CWT nor Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CWT nor Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. 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