Comparison Overview

Spring Airlines

VS

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Spring Airlines

Hongqiao International Airport, Shanghai, CN
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Spring Airlines is China’s first and North Asia’s largest low fare airline – guaranteeing our customers the best-value airfares in China and across the Asia region. Founded in 2005 by Spring Travel, the dominant player in China’s booming travel sector, Spring Airlines is headquartered in Shanghai, China’s financial capital and one of the world’s most dynamic city. To date, Spring has 63 Airbus 320 in 186-seats configuration flying to 130 destinations, 62 domestic and 68 international routes. Spring Airlines owns the top load factors around the world with an average of 94.1% since 2005. Spring entered Shanghai Stock Exchange Market at the end of 2014 and planned fleet growth to 100 aircraft by 2018. So, we are constantly hiring experienced A320 Captains worldwide. If you are interested in our vacancies please send us your CV: [email protected]

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 283
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

Amsterdamseweg 55, None, Amstelveen, None, NL, 1182 GP
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 700 and 749

Welcome to our LinkedIn page! To learn how we can assist you, please check: http://klmf.ly/ContactCentre. KLM was founded in 1919 and is the oldest airline in the world. With a vast network of European and intercontinental destinations, KLM can offer direct flights to major cities and economic centres all over the world. Through our LinkedIn account, we make sure you are kept up-to-date about KLM and other developments in the air transport industry.

NAICS: 481
NAICS Definition: Air Transportation
Employees: 22,391
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/spring-airlines.jpeg
Spring 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/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch 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
Compliance Summary
Spring Airlines
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Spring Airlines in 2025.

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Average (This Year)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has 56.25% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Spring Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/spring-airlines.jpeg
Spring Airlines
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/klm.jpeg
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: AI-Amplified Social Engineering, Third-Party Customer Service Platform Exploitation, Voice Cloning, Deepfake Impersonation
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Monetization, Identity Theft, Loyalty Program Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party system compromise
Motivation: Potential misuse in targeted scams
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Spring Airlines company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Spring Airlines company has not reported any.

In the current year, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported more cyber incidents than Spring Airlines company.

Neither KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company nor Spring Airlines company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Spring Airlines company has not reported such incidents publicly.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Spring Airlines company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Spring Airlines company nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Spring Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Spring Airlines company.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines company employs more people globally than Spring Airlines company, reflecting its scale as a Airlines and Aviation.

Neither Spring Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Spring Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Spring Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Spring Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Spring Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Spring Airlines nor KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 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