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

Comparison Overview

Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店
VS
Rotana HotelsRotana Hotels
Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店

Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店

北京市复兴门外大街19号, 北京市, 北京市/西城区, 100045, CN

Last Update: 21/02/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

秉赋东方之礼 盛放西贵长安 DISCOVERY TANGLA Hotel Beijing “唐拉雅秀”一词源自唐古拉山脉的一个美丽传说,诠释着生命与自然的和谐.“唐古拉山接云天,三江源水养丰年”。耸立在海拔五千米高原上的唐古拉山雄壮圣洁,美丽富饶。冰雪融化并汇集成生生不息的三江源水,孕育了华夏灿烂文明和她的亿万儿女。成百上千年来,唐拉雅秀统领着绵延数百公里的唐古拉山脉。他巍巍昆仑守护着在这里居住的善良的人们,用潺潺流水灌溉着这片富饶辽阔的土地。 北京唐拉雅秀酒店位居北京西长安街,地处首都政务金融核心区域,距金融街一步之遥,距天安门...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rotana Hotels

Rotana Hotels

Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, AE, P.O. Box 95100

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rotana.com
799/1000Fair

Since inception, Rotana has grown to be the region’s largest hospitality management company, and a brand that is widely recognized and admired. Rotana currently manages a portfolio of over 100 properties throughout the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Türkiye o...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:12,851
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店

Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店

-
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
Rotana Hotels

Rotana 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 Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rotana Hotels in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店 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 - Rotana Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rotana Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店

Tangla Hotel Beijing 北京唐拉雅秀酒店

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rotana Hotels

Rotana Hotels

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3