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

Comparison Overview

California Restaurant AssociationCalifornia Restaurant Association
VS
Panda Restaurant GroupPanda Restaurant Group
California Restaurant Association

California Restaurant Association

621 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California, US, 95814

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.calrest.org
648/1000Poor

Founded in 1906, the California Restaurants Association has become one of the strongest advocates for the restaurant industry in the country. The CRA exists to help restaurateurs navigate the sometimes treacherous waters that are the hospitality industry. Serving a broa...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:68
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

1683 Walnut Grove Ave, Rosemead, 91770, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://PandaCareers.com
707/1000Moderate

Panda Restaurant Group is the global leader in Asian dining and includes Panda Express, Panda Inn, and more. Founded in 1973 by Andrew and Peggy Cherng, we are a family-owned business with more than 2,600 restaurants worldwide. Our mission is to deliver exceptional Asia...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:17,796
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
California Restaurant Association

California Restaurant Association

-
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
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

-
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 California Restaurant Association in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Panda Restaurant Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - California Restaurant Association (X = Date, Y = Severity)

California Restaurant Association cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Panda Restaurant Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Panda Restaurant Group 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...
California Restaurant Association

California Restaurant Association

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CALCAL1767196967
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAN012080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANELP1770733073

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2