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

Comparison Overview

Claim Jumper RestaurantsClaim Jumper Restaurants
VS
Papa JohnsPapa Johns
Claim Jumper Restaurants

Claim Jumper Restaurants

2300 S Casino Dr, Laughlin, NV, 89029, US

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.claimjumper.com/
766/1000Fair

Our saloons are a comfortable gathering place to relax after a day at work, to catch a game or share an appetizer with friends. When you step inside a Claim Jumper you will discover an environment that is warm and comfortable. The interiors of our restaurants feature h...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:624
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Papa Johns

Papa Johns

788 Circle 75 Pkwy SE, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30339

Last Update: 17/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.papajohns.com
763/1000Fair

Papa Johns seeks people who have an entrepreneurial spirit and share our philosophy for success. Hands-on training, a clean and safe work environment, quality business practices, advancement opportunities and meaningful work combine to produce not only the best pizza, b...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:29,223
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Claim Jumper Restaurants

Claim Jumper Restaurants

-
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
Papa Johns

Papa Johns

-
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 Claim Jumper Restaurants in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Papa Johns in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Claim Jumper Restaurants (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Claim Jumper Restaurants 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 - Papa Johns (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Papa Johns 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...
Claim Jumper Restaurants

Claim Jumper Restaurants

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Papa Johns

Papa Johns

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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