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

Comparison Overview

Casting FrontierCasting Frontier
VS
Just Eat Takeaway.comJust Eat Takeaway.com
Casting Frontier

Casting Frontier

3250 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, California, 90010, US

Last Update: 04/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://castingfrontier.com
750/1000Fair

Casting Frontier is the leading talent casting solution for the entertainment industry. Our free, cutting edge software and talent database streamlines the audition process, with digital tools for actors, casting directors, producers, agents and managers. Actors can s...

NAICS:511
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Just Eat Takeaway.com

Just Eat Takeaway.com

Piet Heinkade 61, Amsterdam, North Holland, NL, 1019 GM

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
769/1000Fair

Just Eat Take​away​.com is a lead­ing glob­al online deliv­ery mar­ket­place, con­nect­ing con­sumers and restau­rants through our plat­form in 16 coun­tries. Like a dinner table, working at JET brings our office employees and couriers together. From coding to customer...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,437
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Casting Frontier

Casting Frontier

-
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
Just Eat Takeaway.com

Just Eat Takeaway.com

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Casting Frontier in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Just Eat Takeaway.com in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Casting Frontier (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Casting Frontier 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 - Just Eat Takeaway.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Just Eat Takeaway.com cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Casting Frontier

Casting Frontier

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Just Eat Takeaway.com

Just Eat Takeaway.com

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8