Comparison Overview

Aramark

VS

Whitbread

Aramark

2400 Market St, None, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, 19103
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 700 and 749

Aramark (NYSE: ARMK) proudly serves the world’s leading educational institutions, Fortune 500 companies, world champion sports teams, prominent healthcare providers, iconic destinations and cultural attractions, and numerous municipalities in 16 countries around the world with food and facilities management. Because of our hospitality culture, our employees strive to do great things for each other, our partners, our communities, and the planet.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 52,641
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Whitbread

Whitbread Court, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5XE, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-24

Whitbread PLC is the owner of the UK’s favourite hotel chain, Premier Inn, as well as restaurant brands, Beefeater, Brewers Fayre, Table Table, Bar + Block and Cookhouse and Pub. Whitbread employs more than 35,000 people in more than 1,200 Premier Inn hotels and restaurants across the UK and Germany, serving over five million customers every month. At Whitbread we are committed to being a force for good in the communities in which we operate. Our Sustainability programme, ‘Force for Good’ is focused on enabling people to live and work well and is built around three pillars of Opportunity, Community and Responsibility. Whitbread PLC is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100. It is also a member of the FTSE4Good Index.

NAICS: 7211
NAICS Definition: Traveler Accommodation
Employees: 13,547
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aramark.jpeg
Aramark
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/whitbread.jpeg
Whitbread
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
Aramark
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Whitbread
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aramark in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Whitbread in 2025.

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

Aramark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Whitbread cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aramark.jpeg
Aramark
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/whitbread.jpeg
Whitbread
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Aramark company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Whitbread company has not reported any.

In the current year, Whitbread company and Aramark company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Whitbread company nor Aramark company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Neither Whitbread company nor Aramark company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Aramark company nor Whitbread company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aramark nor Whitbread holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Whitbread company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Aramark company.

Aramark company employs more people globally than Whitbread company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitality.

Neither Aramark nor Whitbread holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aramark nor Whitbread holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aramark nor Whitbread holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aramark nor Whitbread holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aramark nor Whitbread holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aramark nor Whitbread 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