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

Comparison Overview

Radisson Hotel GroupRadisson Hotel Group
VS
Caesars EntertainmentCaesars Entertainment
Radisson Hotel Group

Radisson Hotel Group

44 Avenue du Bourget, Brussels, B-1130, BE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
815/1000Good

Radisson Hotel Group is an international hotel group, operating in EMEA and APAC with over 1,320 hotels in operation and under development in +95 countries. The international hotel group is rapidly expanding with a plan to significantly grow the portfolio. The Group’s o...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:17,162
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Caesars Entertainment

Caesars Entertainment

One Caesars Palace Drive, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89109

Last Update: 27/05/2026

View Profile
498/1000Critical

Caesars Entertainment, Inc. is the largest casino-entertainment Company in the U.S. and one of the world's most diversified casino-entertainment providers. Since its beginning in Reno, NV, in 1937, Caesars Entertainment, Inc. has grown through development of new resorts...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:18,132
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Radisson Hotel Group

Radisson 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
Caesars Entertainment

Caesars Entertainment

-
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 Radisson Hotel Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

Caesars Entertainment has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Radisson 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 - Caesars Entertainment (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Caesars Entertainment 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...
Radisson Hotel Group

Radisson Hotel Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Caesars Entertainment

Caesars Entertainment

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAE1779906558
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MGMCAEORAWYN1771962331
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DAVCAECHAPOWKASFILMARSOLNAS1770898846

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8