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

Comparison Overview

Fairmont PalliserFairmont Palliser
VS
ITC Hotels LimitedITC Hotels Limited
Fairmont Palliser

Fairmont Palliser

133- 9th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2M3, CA

Last Update: 03/12/2025

View Profile
773/1000Fair

It's Where You Want To Be! Welcome to Canada's most dynamic city and Calgary's premier hotel. Centrally located in downtown Calgary, Fairmont Palliser is conveniently situated near the city's business and financial district and is within walking distance to the city...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:131
Subsidiaries:115
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Limited, Hotels Division - Headquarters, ITC Green Centre 10, Institutional Area Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana, IN, 122001

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
806/1000Good

Established in 1975, ITC Hotels Limited has grown to encompass over 140+ hotels across 90+ destinations, solidifying its presence in the Indian subcontinent ITC Hotels seamlessly blends India’s rich tradition of hospitality with globally benchmarked services, offering ...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:12,682
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fairmont Palliser

Fairmont Palliser

-
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
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

-
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 Fairmont Palliser in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ITC Hotels Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fairmont Palliser (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fairmont Palliser cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ITC Hotels Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ITC Hotels Limited 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...
Fairmont Palliser

Fairmont Palliser

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ITC Hotels Limited

ITC Hotels Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1