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

Comparison Overview

SmartLynx Airlines LtdSmartLynx Airlines Ltd
VS
KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesKLM Royal Dutch Airlines
SmartLynx Airlines Ltd

SmartLynx Airlines Ltd

Mazrudas, Marupe, LV-2167, LV

Last Update: 22/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smartlynx.aero
757/1000Fair

SmartLynx Airlines is the leading ACMI, charter, and cargo airline, delivering magic on A320 and A321. We specialize in full-service aircraft lease services and are an acknowledged ACMI provider world-wide. Recognized as one of the top choices for aircraft lease soluti...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:716
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, Amstelveen, 1182 GP, NL

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://klmf.ly/R05uLo
738/1000Moderate

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:22,827
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SmartLynx Airlines Ltd

SmartLynx Airlines Ltd

-
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
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

-
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 Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SmartLynx Airlines Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SmartLynx Airlines Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SmartLynx Airlines Ltd 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 - KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 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...
SmartLynx Airlines Ltd

SmartLynx Airlines Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM304080925
🔒 Incident : Breach
KLM2289123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA