Comparison Overview

Qantas

VS

AirAsia

Qantas

10 Bourke Road, None, Mascot, NSW, AU, 2020
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 0 and 549

We would like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the local lands and waterways on which we live, work and fly. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.   Spirit is everything to us, and joining the Qantas team means bringing your spirit to ours. We have over 26,000 exceptional employees, and every year we fly millions of customers around Australia and the world – together.    If you hop on board with the team, you'll experience a workplace where creativity, diversity and innovation are encouraged. We aim to give every member of the Qantas Group the support to follow their dreams, face new challenges, and let their future take flight. Ultimately, people are our priority – those who work for us and those who travel with us.  For the latest information on the cyber incident: https://bit.ly/3I7jNfM Member of the oneworld Alliance. Please read the Qantas LinkedIn House Rules at http://bit.ly/QFhouserules

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 17,358
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

AirAsia

AirAsia Berhad, Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, 64000, MY
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 700 and 749

It all starts here. 23 years ago, a dream took flight - shaping and forever changing the travel industry in Asia. The idea was simple: Make flying affordable for everyone. We made that dream happen. We started an airline in 2001. Today, we’ve evolved to become something much bigger. We’re now a world-class brand, a leading Asean airline, a digital travel and lifestyle platform; and we’re not stopping. If you’re passionate about connecting people and transforming lives, we want you onboard. When it comes to your career, your Allstar journey will be an adventure. Find your dream career destination with us.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 13,494
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qantas.jpeg
Qantas
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/airasia.jpeg
AirAsia
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
Qantas
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AirAsia
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

Qantas has 525.0% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AirAsia in 2025.

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

Qantas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

AirAsia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qantas.jpeg
Qantas
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Vishing, Stolen OAuth Tokens, Salesforce Instance Exploitation (Salesloft’s Drift AI Chat Integration), Dark Web Data Leak Site (DLS), Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Reputation Damage, Regulatory Pressure (GDPR Fines), Disruption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Salesforce Vulnerability, Unauthorized Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Extortion, Reputation Damage, Data Theft for Dark Web Sales
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Credential Abuse, Third-Party Vulnerability (Salesforce)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Extortion), Data Theft for Dark Web Sale
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/airasia.jpeg
AirAsia
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Qantas company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to AirAsia company.

In the current year, Qantas company has reported more cyber incidents than AirAsia company.

Both AirAsia company and Qantas company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Qantas company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other AirAsia company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Qantas company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while AirAsia company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Qantas company nor AirAsia company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Qantas nor AirAsia holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

AirAsia company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Qantas company.

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

Neither Qantas nor AirAsia holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Qantas nor AirAsia holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Qantas nor AirAsia holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Qantas nor AirAsia holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Qantas nor AirAsia holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Qantas nor AirAsia holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

FreePBX Endpoint Manager is a module for managing telephony endpoints in FreePBX systems. Versions prior to 16.0.96 and 17.0.1 through 17.0.9 have a weak default password. By default, this is a 6 digit numeric value which can be brute forced. (This is the app_password parameter). Depending on local configuration, this password could be the extension, voicemail, user manager, DPMA or EPM phone admin password. This issue is fixed in versions 16.0.96 and 17.0.10.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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

Neuron is a PHP framework for creating and orchestrating AI Agents. In versions 2.8.11 and below, the MySQLWriteTool executes arbitrary SQL provided by the caller using PDO::prepare() + execute() without semantic restrictions. This is consistent with the name (“write tool”), but in an LLM/agent context it becomes a high-risk capability: prompt injection or indirect prompt manipulation can cause execution of destructive queries such as DROP TABLE, TRUNCATE, DELETE, ALTER, or privilege-related statements (subject to DB permissions). Deployments that expose an agent with MySQLWriteTool enabled to untrusted input and/or run the tool with a DB user that has broad privileges are impacted. This issue is fixed in version 2.8.12.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
Description

Neuron is a PHP framework for creating and orchestrating AI Agents. Versions 2.8.11 and below use MySQLSelectTool, which is vulnerable to Read-Only Bypass. MySQLSelectTool is intended to be a read-only SQL tool (e.g., for LLM agent querying, however, validation based on the first keyword (e.g., SELECT) and a forbidden-keyword list does not block file-writing constructs such as INTO OUTFILE / INTO DUMPFILE. As a result, an attacker who can influence the tool input (e.g., via prompt injection through a public agent endpoint) may write arbitrary files to the DB server if the MySQL/MariaDB account has the FILE privilege and server configuration permits writes to a useful location (e.g., a web-accessible directory). This issue is fixed in version 2.8.12.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

Okta Java Management SDK facilitates interactions with the Okta management API. In versions 11.0.0 through 20.0.0, race conditions may arise from concurrent requests using the ApiClient class. This could cause a status code or response header from one request’s response to influence another request’s response. This issue is fixed in version 20.0.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

The Auth0 Next.js SDK is a library for implementing user authentication in Next.js applications. When using versions 4.11.0 through 4.11.2 and 4.12.0, simultaneous requests on the same client may result in improper lookups in the TokenRequestCache for the request results. This issue is fixed in versions 4.11.2 and 4.12.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N