Comparison Overview

VroomVroomVroom

VS

MSC Cruises

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

MSC Cruises

Avenue Eugene Pittard, Geneva, 1206, CH
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, MSC Cruises is the world’s third largest cruise lines and the market leader in Europe, South America, the Middle East and Southern Africa, with a strong and growing presence in North America and the Far East. The MSC Cruises fleet consists of 23 modern ships with four new vessels due to be launched in 2026, 2027, 2029 and 2030. The Company operates in more than 100 countries around the world, offering cruises across five continents, calling at more than 240 destinations and welcoming more than 180 different nationalities on board. MSC Cruises is firmly committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions for its marine operations by 2050.

NAICS: 5615
NAICS Definition: Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees: 18,545
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/msc-cruises.jpeg
MSC Cruises
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
MSC Cruises
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 MSC Cruises in 2026.

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

VroomVroomVroom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — MSC Cruises (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MSC Cruises 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/msc-cruises.jpeg
MSC Cruises
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

VroomVroomVroom company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas MSC Cruises company has not reported any.

In the current year, VroomVroomVroom company has reported more cyber incidents than MSC Cruises company.

Neither MSC Cruises company nor VroomVroomVroom company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

VroomVroomVroom company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other MSC Cruises company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither MSC Cruises company nor VroomVroomVroom company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither VroomVroomVroom company nor MSC Cruises company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor MSC Cruises holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither VroomVroomVroom company nor MSC Cruises company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

MSC Cruises company employs more people globally than VroomVroomVroom company, reflecting its scale as a Travel Arrangements.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor MSC Cruises holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor MSC Cruises holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor MSC Cruises holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor MSC Cruises holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor MSC Cruises holds HIPAA certification.

Neither VroomVroomVroom nor MSC Cruises 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