Comparison Overview

United Airlines

VS

Lufthansa Group

United Airlines

233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
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

Lufthansa Group

Airportring, Frankfurt, -, 60546, DE
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

The Lufthansa Group is an aviation company with operations worldwide. It plays a leading role in its European home market. With 109,509 employees, the Lufthansa Group generated revenue of EUR 32.770m in the financial year 2022. The Passenger Airlines segment includes, on the one hand, the network airlines Lufthansa German Airlines, SWISS, Austrian Airlines and Brussels Airlines. As part of the multihub strategy, they offer their passengers a broad range of flights from their global hubs in Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich as well as their national hubs in Vienna and Brussels. Lufthansa German Airlines also includes the regional airlines Lufthansa CityLine, Air Dolomiti and Eurowings Discover, the Lufthansa Group’s holiday airline. Besides the network airlines, Eurowings also belongs to the Passenger Airlines segment. This airline provides a comprehensive range of point-to-point connections for European short-haul destinations, in particular from German-speaking countries. Besides its Passenger Airlines business segment, the Lufthansa Group also comprises aviation services. This includes the Logistics, MRO and Catering segments in particular. The Lufthansa Group also includes the Additional Businesses and Group Functions. These comprise Lufthansa Aviation Training and Lufthansa Systems especially.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 54,173
Subsidiaries: 49
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/lufthansa-group.jpeg
Lufthansa Group
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
Lufthansa Group
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 Lufthansa Group in 2025.

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

United Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lufthansa Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lufthansa Group 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/lufthansa-group.jpeg
Lufthansa Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Lufthansa Group 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 Lufthansa Group company has not reported any.

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

Neither Lufthansa Group 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 Lufthansa Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

Neither United Airlines nor Lufthansa Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lufthansa Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to United Airlines company.

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

Neither United Airlines nor Lufthansa Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither United Airlines nor Lufthansa Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither United Airlines nor Lufthansa Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither United Airlines nor Lufthansa Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither United Airlines nor Lufthansa Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither United Airlines nor Lufthansa Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H