Comparison Overview

DIONS PIZZA

VS

Waffle House, Inc.

DIONS PIZZA

2721 82Nd St, Lubbock, Texas 79423, US
Last Update: 2025-03-16 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

None

NAICS: 722
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 25
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Waffle House, Inc.

5986 Financial Dr NW, None, Norcross, Georgia, US, 30071
Last Update: 2025-07-26 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

Waffle House has been serving Good Food Fastยฎ since 1955. We started in one restaurant serving Avondale Estates, GA, and then grew into a national brand with more than 1,900 restaurants in 25 states providing career paths to 40,000 + employees. The love and devotion of our customer base helped build the Waffle House Brand into a name recognized around the world. Our mission is to serve great food and care for people on both sides of the counter, Customers and Associates alike. Whether itโ€™s early morning, late night, or anywhere in between, weโ€™re always open. Thanks to our culture of promoting from within, we provide lasting career opportunities that are unmatched within this industry. Whether youโ€™re working alongside us in Restaurant Operations or on our Corporate Support Team, you can help us continue the mission our founders began in 1955. Learn more about Waffle House by visiting our website at www.wafflehouse.com/careers and following us on LinkedIn.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 26,039
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
DIONS PIZZA
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/waffle-house.jpeg
Waffle House, Inc.
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
DIONS PIZZA
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Waffle House, Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DIONS PIZZA in 2025.

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Waffle House, Inc. in 2025.

Incident History โ€” DIONS PIZZA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DIONS PIZZA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Waffle House, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Waffle House, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
DIONS PIZZA
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/waffle-house.jpeg
Waffle House, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both DIONS PIZZA company and Waffle House, Inc. company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Waffle House, Inc. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to DIONS PIZZA company.

In the current year, Waffle House, Inc. company and DIONS PIZZA company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Waffle House, Inc. company nor DIONS PIZZA company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Waffle House, Inc. company nor DIONS PIZZA company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Waffle House, Inc. company nor DIONS PIZZA company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither DIONS PIZZA company nor Waffle House, Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither DIONS PIZZA company nor Waffle House, Inc. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Waffle House, Inc. company employs more people globally than DIONS PIZZA 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 tokenโ€™s signature, expiration, issuer, or audience. If an attacker learns the victimโ€™s actual user.id, they can craft an arbitrary JWT with an alg: "none" header and use it to authenticate and reset the victimโ€™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 victimโ€™s browser to execute arbitrary GraphQL queries or mutations against their GraphQL server while authenticated with the victimโ€™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