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

Comparison Overview

New World Saigon HotelNew World Saigon Hotel
VS
HyattHyatt
New World Saigon Hotel

New World Saigon Hotel

76 Le Lai Street, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, VN

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

Ideally located within the vibrant business hub of District 1, New World Saigon Hotel provides 533 spacious guestrooms and suites offering the perfect ambiance for both concentrated work and undisturbed relaxation. Just seven kilometers from Tan Son Nhat International ...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:314
Subsidiaries:65
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Hyatt

Hyatt

150 N Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL, US, 60606

Last Update: 18/07/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.hyatt.com
583/1000Very Poor

Hyatt is guided by its purpose: to care for people so they can be their best. Hyatt’s portfolio includes 1,000+ hotel and all-inclusive properties in over 75 countries across 6 continents. Hyatt’s offerings include brands in the Timeless Collection, including Park Hyatt...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:89,774
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
New World Saigon Hotel

New World Saigon Hotel

-
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
Hyatt

Hyatt

-
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 New World Saigon Hotel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hyatt in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - New World Saigon Hotel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

New World Saigon Hotel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Hyatt (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hyatt 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...
New World Saigon Hotel

New World Saigon Hotel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hyatt

Hyatt

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FOHNORHYAOMN1769001286
🔒 Incident : Breach
NORKFCFOHTACHYA1769001351
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
HYA1768842036

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9