Comparison Overview

VroomVroomVroom

VS

Europcar Mobility Group

VroomVroomVroom

349 Coronation Dr, Milton, 4064, AU
Last Update: 2026-01-23

If you’re looking for a competitively-priced rental car from a well-respected company, VroomVroomVroom is here to help. Launched in 2001, VroomVroomVroom is family-owned and operated, and is one of the largest car rental online travel agencies in the Southern Hemisphere. By being a fast-paced technology innovator, the company has grown from humble beginnings into a leading player in car hire e-commerce and aggregation technology. It is committed to constant improvement and evolution for the benefit of its customers. In working to deliver each and every day the best prices and availability to customers, VroomVroomVroom facilitates hundreds of thousands of rental car bookings per year with internationally respected suppliers including Avis, Budget, Enterprise, Europcar, Hertz, Sixt and Thrifty. Today, with well over four million rentals across 136 nations, VroomVroomVroom is proud of both its ongoing independence — and millions of satisfied customers.

NAICS: 5615
NAICS Definition: Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees: 39
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Europcar Mobility Group

13 ter Boulevard Berthier, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75017
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Europcar Mobility Group is a global mobility player, with 75 years of mobility services expertise and a leading position in Europe. “We help to change the way you move” is what we stand for and brings us together. More than ever, we're committed to delivering simple, seamless, innovative solutions that make mobility easy, enjoyable and increasingly eco-friendly. To do this, we offer to individuals and businesses a wide range of car and van rental services, be it for a few hours, a few days, a week, a month or more, on-demand or on subscription, relying on a fleet of more than 250.000 vehicles, equipped with the latest engines including an increasing share of electric vehicles. Our brands address differentiated needs, use cases and expectations: Europcar® - a global leader of car rental and light commercial vehicle rental, Goldcar® - a frontrunner at providing low-cost car rental services in Europe, and Fox Rent A Car®, one of the main players in the car rental market in the US, with a "value for money" positioning. The Group also operates the "myEuropcar" platform for vehicle subscription, and "Europcar on Demand", a roundtrip car-sharing service present in key cities in Europe. Customers’ satisfaction is at the heart of the Group’s ambition and that of our more than 8,000 employees, everywhere we deliver our mobility solutions, thanks to a strong network in over 130 countries (including 16 wholly owned subsidiaries completed by franchisees and alliance partners).

NAICS: 5615
NAICS Definition: Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees: 10,562
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vroomvroomvroom.jpeg
VroomVroomVroom
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/europcar-mobility-group.jpeg
Europcar Mobility 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
VroomVroomVroom
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Europcar Mobility Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Average (This Year)

VroomVroomVroom has 60.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Europcar Mobility Group in 2026.

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

VroomVroomVroom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Europcar Mobility Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vroomvroomvroom.jpeg
VroomVroomVroom
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorised system access (vulnerability exploitation)
Motivation: Extortion, potential financial gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/europcar-mobility-group.jpeg
Europcar Mobility Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to GitLab Repositories
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Europcar Mobility Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to VroomVroomVroom company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

VroomVroomVroom and Europcar Mobility Group have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, VroomVroomVroom company has reported more cyber incidents than Europcar Mobility Group company.

Neither Europcar Mobility Group company nor VroomVroomVroom company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Europcar Mobility Group company and VroomVroomVroom company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Europcar Mobility Group company nor VroomVroomVroom company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither VroomVroomVroom company nor Europcar Mobility Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor Europcar Mobility Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Europcar Mobility Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to VroomVroomVroom company.

Europcar Mobility Group company employs more people globally than VroomVroomVroom company, reflecting its scale as a Travel Arrangements.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor Europcar Mobility Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor Europcar Mobility Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor Europcar Mobility Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor Europcar Mobility Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor Europcar Mobility Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor Europcar Mobility Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N