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

Comparison Overview

The Washington Mayfair HotelThe Washington Mayfair Hotel
VS
Radisson Hotel GroupRadisson Hotel Group
The Washington Mayfair Hotel

The Washington Mayfair Hotel

5 Curzon Street Mayfair, London, GB, W1J 5HE

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
652/1000Weak

The Washington Mayfair hotel is a 4 star deluxe hotel in the heart of London. It has 171 bedrooms and suites, as well as bar, restaurant, event spaces, fitness centre and a friendly service. Can arrange everything from accommodation, to pre or post film premiere parties...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:45
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
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

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
The Washington Mayfair Hotel

The Washington Mayfair Hotel

-
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
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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

The Washington Mayfair Hotel has 34.21% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Radisson Hotel Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - The Washington Mayfair Hotel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Washington Mayfair Hotel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
The Washington Mayfair Hotel

The Washington Mayfair Hotel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
THE1771338416
Radisson Hotel Group

Radisson Hotel Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA