Comparison Overview

Electronic Arts (EA)

VS

The Walt Disney Company

Electronic Arts (EA)

209 Redwood Shores Pkwy, Redwood City, CA, US, 94065
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Electronic Arts creates next-level entertainment experiences that inspire players and fans around the world. Here, everyone is part of the story. Part of a community that connects across the globe. A team where creativity thrives, new perspectives are invited, and ideas matter. Regardless of your role, team, or location, this is a place where everyone makes play happen. Join us.

NAICS: 71
NAICS Definition: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees: 32,473
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

The Walt Disney Company

The Walt Disney Company, Burbank, CA, 91521, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

The Walt Disney Company, together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, is a leading diversified international family entertainment and media enterprise that includes three core business segments: Disney Entertainment, ESPN, and Disney Experiences. Our mission is to entertain, inform and inspire people around the globe through the power of unparalleled storytelling, reflecting the iconic brands, creative minds and innovative technologies that make us the world’s premier entertainment company.

NAICS: 71
NAICS Definition: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees: 177,769
Subsidiaries: 64
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/electronic-arts.jpeg
Electronic Arts (EA)
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/the-walt-disney-company.jpeg
The Walt Disney Company
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
Electronic Arts (EA)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Walt Disney Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Electronic Arts (EA) in 2025.

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Average (This Year)

The Walt Disney Company has 28.21% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Electronic Arts (EA) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Electronic Arts (EA) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Walt Disney Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Walt Disney Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/electronic-arts.jpeg
Electronic Arts (EA)
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Credential Theft (Authentication Cookies), Social Engineering, Internal Network Access via Slack
Motivation: Financial Gain (Extortion), Data Monetization (Failed Sale)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-walt-disney-company.jpeg
The Walt Disney Company
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing, Malware
Motivation: Data exfiltration, Financial gain, Public disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malicious AI tool installation
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Electronic Arts (EA) company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Walt Disney Company company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

The Walt Disney Company company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Electronic Arts (EA) company.

In the current year, The Walt Disney Company company has reported more cyber incidents than Electronic Arts (EA) company.

The Walt Disney Company company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Electronic Arts (EA) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both The Walt Disney Company company and Electronic Arts (EA) company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither The Walt Disney Company company nor Electronic Arts (EA) company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) company nor The Walt Disney Company company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) nor The Walt Disney Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

The Walt Disney Company company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Electronic Arts (EA) company.

The Walt Disney Company company employs more people globally than Electronic Arts (EA) company, reflecting its scale as a Entertainment Providers.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) nor The Walt Disney Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) nor The Walt Disney Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) nor The Walt Disney Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) nor The Walt Disney Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) nor The Walt Disney Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Electronic Arts (EA) nor The Walt Disney Company holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H