Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

AutogrillAutogrill
VS
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support CenterChick-fil-A Corporate Support Center
Autogrill

Autogrill

Palazzo Z Strada 5, Rozzano - Milanofiori, Italy, 20089, IT

Last Update: 23/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.autogrill.com
776/1000Fair

Autogrill is the world’s leading provider of food & beverage services for travellers. The Group is present in 30 countries on 4 continents, operates in about 774 locations managing about 3,300 points of sale with about 46,000 employees and is present in 139 airports. A...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:4,898
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

5200 Buffington Road, Atlanta, 30349, US

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
513/1000Critical

At its Atlanta headquarters, known as the Corporate Support Center, Chick-fil-A, Inc. offers full-time careers in various fields such as Digital Transformation & Technology, Financial Services & Accounting, Enterprise Analytics, Restaurant Development, Early Talent Prog...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:92,373
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
5
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Autogrill

Autogrill

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Autogrill in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center has 385.44% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Autogrill (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Autogrill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Autogrill

Autogrill

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI1785205686
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI1784708960
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI1784737860

FAQ

Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Autogrill company and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Autogrill and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Autogrill and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Autogrill or Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Autogrill or Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center ?
Between Autogrill and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Autogrill and Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1