Comparison Overview

Dhanani Group Inc

VS

JDE Peet's

Dhanani Group Inc

None
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 600 and 649

Starting in the gas and convenience store business in 1976, the Dhanani Group became a franchisee for Burger King in 1994 with their first co-branded restaurant in Houston, Texas. The Sugar Land, Texas-based company is now one of the nation’s top QSR franchisees for Burger King Corporation, Pizza Huts and more.

NAICS: 722
NAICS Definition: Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees: 43
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

JDE Peet's

Oosterdoksstraat 80, Amsterdam, North Holland, NL, 1011 DK
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

JDE Peet’s is the world’s leading pure-play coffee company, serving approximately 4,400 cups of coffee per second in more than 100 markets. Guided by our ‘Reignite the Amazing’ strategy, we are focusing on brand-led growth across three big bets: Peet’s, L’OR, and Jacobs, alongside a collection of 9 local icons. In 2024, JDE Peet’s generated total sales of EUR 8.8 billion and employed a global workforce of more than 21,000 employees. Discover more about our journey to deliver a coffee for every cup and a brand for every heart at www.jdepeets.com.

NAICS: 722
NAICS Definition: Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees: 10,426
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dhanani-group-inc.jpeg
Dhanani Group Inc
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jdepeets.jpeg
JDE Peet's
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Dhanani Group Inc
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
JDE Peet's
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Dhanani Group Inc in 2026.

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JDE Peet's in 2026.

Incident History — Dhanani Group Inc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dhanani Group Inc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — JDE Peet's (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JDE Peet's cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dhanani-group-inc.jpeg
Dhanani Group Inc
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jdepeets.jpeg
JDE Peet's
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

JDE Peet's company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Dhanani Group Inc company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Dhanani Group Inc company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas JDE Peet's company has not reported any.

In the current year, JDE Peet's company and Dhanani Group Inc company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither JDE Peet's company nor Dhanani Group Inc company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Dhanani Group Inc company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other JDE Peet's company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither JDE Peet's company nor Dhanani Group Inc company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc company nor JDE Peet's company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc nor JDE Peet's holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

JDE Peet's company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Dhanani Group Inc company.

JDE Peet's company employs more people globally than Dhanani Group Inc company, reflecting its scale as a Food and Beverage Services.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc nor JDE Peet's holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc nor JDE Peet's holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc nor JDE Peet's holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc nor JDE Peet's holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc nor JDE Peet's holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Dhanani Group Inc nor JDE Peet's holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N