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

Comparison Overview

SlackSlack
VS
Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)
Slack

Slack

500 Howard St, San Francisco, California, US

Last Update: 04/05/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://slack.com/
683/1000Weak

Slack is on a mission to make people's working lives simpler, more pleasant and more productive. It is the productivity platform for customer companies that improves performance by empowering everyone with no-code automation, making search and knowledge sharing seamless...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:2,964
Subsidiaries:48
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3
Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

800 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, 06854, US

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
765/1000Fair

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG) is the world leader in online travel and services that support the entire travel journey. Our platforms - including Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda, KAYAK and OpenTable - utilize advanced AI, machine learning and other innovative technologi...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:19,153
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Slack

Slack

-
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
Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Slack has 38.65% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG) has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Slack (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Slack cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG) 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...
Slack

Slack

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
WORNOTGOOZOONIKTIN1777868873
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TIN0344703102825
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GCPTINOPETHE1776717501
Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Booking Holdings (NASDAQ: BKNG)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AGOBOO1776904233
🔒 Incident : Breach
ADOGOOMICEURBOO1776594302

FAQ

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