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

Comparison Overview

OYO ChinaOYO China
VS
Taj HotelsTaj Hotels
OYO China

OYO China

undefined, 上海, 上海, 200000, CN

Last Update: 16/03/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

OYO酒店,2017年登陆深圳,作为一家连锁酒店品牌企业,专注于打造优质旅居生活空间,解决经济型单体酒店碎片化发展的现状。目前OYO酒店已进驻全国170多个城市,签约酒店已经超过1700家,拥有超过86000多间客房,业务覆盖深圳、广州、杭州、成都等城市。OYO酒店力图为二三四五六线城市创造更多就业机会,帮助推动当地旅游业的发展。花更少,住更好,和我们一起住进未来吧

NAICS:721
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:57
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Taj Hotels

Taj Hotels

9th Floor, Express Towers,, Mumbai, 400 021, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.tajhotels.com
818/1000Good

Established in 1903, Taj is The Indian Hotels Company Limited’s (IHCL) iconic brand for the world’s most discerning travellers seeking luxury and authentic experiences. Taj has been rated as India’s Strongest Brand across all sectors for an unprecedented fourth time and...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:24,292
Subsidiaries:68
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OYO China

OYO China

-
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
Taj Hotels

Taj Hotels

-
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 OYO China in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Taj Hotels in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - OYO China (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OYO China 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 - Taj Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Taj Hotels 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...
OYO China

OYO China

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Taj Hotels

Taj Hotels

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81203
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=login2. The manipulation of the argument email leads to sql injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-80158
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the ipa_getkeytab module of the community.general Ansible collection. The module's bind_pw parameter, used to supply the LDAP simple-bind password when retrieving a Kerberos keytab, is not declared with no_log, unlike the sibling password parameter in the same module. As a consequence, the supplied IPA/LDAP bind password is recorded in cleartext in the managed host's system journal/syslog (the module's "Invoked with" record), is included in the module's return values and verbose (-v) output, and is displayed in Automation Controller / AWX job output. The password is additionally passed on the command line to the ipa-getkeytab helper (as --bindpw <value>), exposing it in the process list to local users while the command runs. An attacker able to read these logs, job output, or the process table can obtain the directory bind credential, potentially compromising the accounts and objects that credential can access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-75340
SUMMARY

The device metadata import interface /device/instance/{productId}/property-metadata/import of jetlinks community 2.11 is vulnerable to Server-side request forgery (SSRF).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-75338
SUMMARY

disconf (Distributed Configuration Management Platform) 2.6.36 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. The config-fetching APIs /api/config/item, /api/config/file, /api/config/list and /api/config/simple/list are exposed without authentication. The LoginInterceptor explicitly whitelists these four paths, so any anonymous attacker can read every configuration item and configuration file managed by the config center.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-75336
SUMMARY

Funiture 1.0.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the backend tool interfaces /sys/tool/select.json and /sys/tool/update.json.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA