Comparison Overview

Wynn Resorts

VS

Hilton Grand Vacations

Wynn Resorts

3131 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

Wynn Resorts, Limited is traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol WYNN and is part of the S&P 500 Index. Wynn Resorts owns and operates Wynn Las Vegas, Encore Boston Harbor, Wynn Macau and Wynn Palace, Cotai. Wynn Resorts holds more Forbes Travel Guide Five Stars than any other independent hotel company in the world.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 6,518
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Hilton Grand Vacations

5323 Millenia Lakes Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32839, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Hilton Grand Vacations is a global leader in vacation ownership, developing, marketing and operating a portfolio of high-quality, shared-ownership properties in highly desired vacation destinations. Our company also manages and operates innovative club membership programs providing exclusive exchange, leisure travel, and reservation services for our Members. At Hilton Grand Vacations, our culture of hospitality extends to our more than 10,000 Team Members who collectively play an important role in delivering exceptional service, quality accommodations, and memorable travel experiences. That’s why we’ve created a workplace that supports growth, opportunity, work-life balance, and respect throughout our Club affiliated properties, sales centers, and corporate offices around the globe.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 13,594
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/wynnresorts.jpeg
Wynn Resorts
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/hilton-grand-vacations.jpeg
Hilton Grand Vacations
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
Wynn Resorts
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Hilton Grand Vacations
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wynn Resorts in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hilton Grand Vacations in 2025.

Incident History — Wynn Resorts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Wynn Resorts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Hilton Grand Vacations (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hilton Grand Vacations cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wynnresorts.jpeg
Wynn Resorts
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hilton-grand-vacations.jpeg
Hilton Grand Vacations
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Wynn Resorts company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Hilton Grand Vacations company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Hilton Grand Vacations company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Wynn Resorts company.

In the current year, Hilton Grand Vacations company and Wynn Resorts company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Hilton Grand Vacations company nor Wynn Resorts company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Hilton Grand Vacations company nor Wynn Resorts company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Hilton Grand Vacations company nor Wynn Resorts company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Wynn Resorts company nor Hilton Grand Vacations company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Wynn Resorts nor Hilton Grand Vacations holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Wynn Resorts company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Hilton Grand Vacations company.

Hilton Grand Vacations company employs more people globally than Wynn Resorts company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Wynn Resorts nor Hilton Grand Vacations holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Wynn Resorts nor Hilton Grand Vacations holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Wynn Resorts nor Hilton Grand Vacations holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Wynn Resorts nor Hilton Grand Vacations holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Wynn Resorts nor Hilton Grand Vacations holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Wynn Resorts nor Hilton Grand Vacations 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