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

Comparison Overview

Royal Caribbean GroupRoyal Caribbean Group
VS
Carnival Cruise LineCarnival Cruise Line
Royal Caribbean Group

Royal Caribbean Group

Royal Caribbean Group 1050 Caribbean Way Miami, Miami, Florida, US, 2312

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
813/1000Good

At Royal Caribbean Group, we deliver unforgettable vacations to guests who trust us with life’s greatest moments. We build the best ships, and even better careers, all while doing the right thing. We are passionate. We are innovative. We are unstoppable. We open the wor...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:44,482
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Carnival Cruise Line

Carnival Cruise Line

3655 NW 87th Avenue, Miami, Florida, US, 33178

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://jobs.carnival.com/
662/1000Weak

Since our founding in 1972, Carnival Cruise Line — "The World’s Most Popular Cruise Line®” — carries millions of passengers every year. We offer a fun and unique career destination for a wide range of professionals in Marketing, IT, Accounting/Audit, Finance, Marine Ope...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:27,173
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Royal Caribbean Group

Royal Caribbean 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
Carnival Cruise Line

Carnival Cruise Line

-
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 Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Royal Caribbean Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

Carnival Cruise Line has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Royal Caribbean Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Royal Caribbean Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Carnival Cruise Line (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carnival Cruise Line 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...
Royal Caribbean Group

Royal Caribbean Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROY1011090725
Carnival Cruise Line

Carnival Cruise Line

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAR1780295181
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAR1780325760
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CAR327092125

FAQ

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