Comparison Overview

Chicken Shack

VS

Burger King

Chicken Shack

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-05-05 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

Founded in 1956, Chicken Shack is the place to go to get the best Chicken, Ribs and Seafood in the Metro Detroit area. Stop in and try our delicious food, and remember, "When you think Chicken, think Chicken Shack."

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 209
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Burger King

5505 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, FL, 33126, US
Last Update: 2025-03-04 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

The year is 1954. Dave and Jim*, two budding entrepreneurs, are on a mission to re-design the perfect broiler, one that will infuse flame-grilled goodness into every burger. And that's how our brand was born. Today the Burger King Corporation, its affiliates and its franchisees collectively operate more than 17,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories, serving over 11 million guests per day and they’re still coming back for that flame-grilled flavor. The Burger King® brand is owned by Restaurant Brands International Inc. (“RBI”), which owns three of the world’s iconic quick service restaurant brands – Burger King®, Tim Hortons®, and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen®. But we still have room to grow – and that’s where you come in. We need strong operations, bold marketing, and the best people around to make these brands great. And if we like what we see, there’s no limit to how far you could go here. For more information and exciting career opportunities, please RBI’s website at www.rbicareers.com. For more information about Burger King Corporation, please visit the company’s website at www.bk.com or follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Burger King is a registered trademark of Burger King Corporation. All rights reserved. Please visit www.bk.com for more information on Burger King Corporation trademarks. * Dave Egerton and Jim McLamore, original founders of the Burger King® brand.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 106,858
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chicken-shack.jpeg
Chicken Shack
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/burger-king.jpeg
Burger King
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Chicken Shack
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Burger King
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chicken Shack in 2025.

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Burger King in 2025.

Incident History — Chicken Shack (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chicken Shack cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Burger King (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Burger King cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chicken-shack.jpeg
Chicken Shack
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/burger-king.jpeg
Burger King
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hard-coded Credentials, Plain-text Passwords in Emails, Unrestricted API Access, Default/Weak Passwords (e.g., 'admin')
Motivation: Ethical Hacking / Responsible Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Website Configuration Error
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Misconfigured Database
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Both Chicken Shack company and Burger King company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Burger King company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Chicken Shack company has not reported any.

In the current year, Burger King company has reported more cyber incidents than Chicken Shack company.

Neither Burger King company nor Chicken Shack company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Burger King company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Chicken Shack company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Burger King company nor Chicken Shack company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Chicken Shack company nor Burger King company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Burger King company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Chicken Shack company.

Burger King company employs more people globally than Chicken Shack company, reflecting its scale as a Restaurants.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Formbricks is an open source qualtrics alternative. Prior to version 4.0.1, Formbricks is missing JWT signature verification. This vulnerability stems from a token validation routine that only decodes JWTs (jwt.decode) without verifying their signatures. Both the email verification token login path and the password reset server action use the same validator, which does not check the token’s signature, expiration, issuer, or audience. If an attacker learns the victim’s actual user.id, they can craft an arbitrary JWT with an alg: "none" header and use it to authenticate and reset the victim’s password. This issue has been patched in version 4.0.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

Apollo Studio Embeddable Explorer & Embeddable Sandbox are website embeddable software solutions from Apollo GraphQL. Prior to Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3, a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified. The vulnerability arises from missing origin validation in the client-side code that handles window.postMessage events. A malicious website can send forged messages to the embedding page, causing the victim’s browser to execute arbitrary GraphQL queries or mutations against their GraphQL server while authenticated with the victim’s cookies. This issue has been patched in Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /consulta-dispensas. Such manipulation leads to improper authorization. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

A weakness has been identified in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected is an unknown function of the file /module/Api/aluno. This manipulation of the argument aluno_id causes improper authorization. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Tencent WeKnora 0.1.0. This impacts the function testEmbeddingModel of the file /api/v1/initialization/embedding/test. The manipulation of the argument baseUrl results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The vendor responds: "We have confirmed that the issue mentioned in the report does not exist in the latest releases".

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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