Comparison Overview

United Airlines

VS

JetBlue

United Airlines

233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 700 and 749

This is the story of airline that leads the industry from ground to clouds. Our global cast of over 100,000+ hero characters are each on a journey to be a force for good for our customers, the planet and each other. Come be part of this story.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 68,742
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

JetBlue

27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, New York, 11101, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

When JetBlue first took flight in February 2000, our founding goal was to bring humanity back to air travel, and over two decades later, we still put our customers, crewmembers and communities at the center of everything we do. Before we even had aircraft to fly, our founders selected five values to guide us, which are safety, caring, integrity, passion and fun. These core values shape our culture and empower our 23,000 crewmembers to deliver a meaningful JetBlue experience to more than 40 million customers that fly with us each year to more than 100 cities across the United States, Latin America, Caribbean, Canada and Europe. We’re proud to be New York's Hometown Airline®, and a leading carrier in Boston, Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood, Los Angeles, Orlando, and San Juan. Please note: If you have concerns or complaints that require response, please visit http://jetblue.com/chat.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 16,257
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/united-airlines.jpeg
United Airlines
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jetblue-airways.jpeg
JetBlue
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
United Airlines
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
JetBlue
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for United Airlines in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JetBlue in 2025.

Incident History — United Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — JetBlue (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JetBlue cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/united-airlines.jpeg
United Airlines
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2014
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Account Compromise
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jetblue-airways.jpeg
JetBlue
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

JetBlue company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to United Airlines company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

United Airlines company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas JetBlue company has not reported any.

In the current year, JetBlue company and United Airlines company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither JetBlue company nor United Airlines company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

United Airlines company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other JetBlue company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither JetBlue company nor United Airlines company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither United Airlines company nor JetBlue company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither United Airlines nor JetBlue holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

United Airlines company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to JetBlue company.

United Airlines company employs more people globally than JetBlue company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither United Airlines nor JetBlue holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither United Airlines nor JetBlue holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither United Airlines nor JetBlue holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither United Airlines nor JetBlue holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither United Airlines nor JetBlue holds HIPAA certification.

Neither United Airlines nor JetBlue holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N