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

Comparison Overview

Bon Appétit Management CompanyBon Appétit Management Company
VS
KFCKFC
Bon Appétit Management Company

Bon Appétit Management Company

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 175, Redwood City, 94065, US

Last Update: 21/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bamco.com
774/1000Fair

Bon Appétit Management Company (www.bamco.com) is an on-site restaurant company offering full food-service management to corporations, universities, and specialty venues. Based in Redwood City, CA, Bon Appétit has more than 1,000 cafés in 33 states, including ones for G...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:4,234
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KFC

KFC

KFC Global Headquarters , Dallas, TX, US, 75024

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://global.kfc.com/
700/1000Moderate

We’re KFC. The iconic, brand making world-famous finger lickin’ good fried chicken since 1952. Our unrivaled people and culture are the true heart and soul of our brand. It’s where our people promise comes to life every day. Where our employees can be their best selves,...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:90,869
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bon Appétit Management Company

Bon Appétit Management Company

-
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
KFC

KFC

-
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 Bon Appétit Management Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

KFC has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Bon Appétit Management Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bon Appétit Management Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

KFC 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...
Bon Appétit Management Company

Bon Appétit Management Company

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KFC

KFC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
(株)1784161532
🔒 Incident : Breach
NORKFCFOHTACHYA1769001351
🔒 Incident : Breach
FOHKFCNORHYAOMN1769001235

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA