Comparison Overview

FireKeepers Casino Hotel

VS

Cahuilla Casino Hotel

FireKeepers Casino Hotel

11177 Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan, 49014, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

FireKeepers Casino Hotel is located just off Interstate 94 at Exit 104 in Battle Creek Michigan. This beautiful property features an 130,000 square foot gaming floor with 2,900 slot machines, 70 table games and a live poker room. FireKeepers also offers a Four Diamond resort-style hotel with 446 guest rooms, and a functional multi-purpose event center capable of seating up to 2,000 guests. Guests can enjoy 6 distinctive dinning destinations and multiple lounges and entertainment venues. We want FireKeepers Casino Hotel to be your casino of choice in the Midwest. For more information, please visit www.firekeeperscasino.com or call toll-free at 877.FKC.8777 (877-352-8777).

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 834
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Cahuilla Casino Hotel

P.O. BOX 390854, Anza, California 92539-0854, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Cahuilla Casino Hotel is celebrating the opening of our all-new casino, hotel and restaurant, Ribbonwood! Established in 1996 by the Cahuilla Band of Indians, we are located in the mountains of Anza, just thirty minutes from Temecula’s Wine Country. We’re a favorite day trip destination for players from all over Southern California because of the beautiful drive and serene mountain setting. We are home to 349 slot machines featuring the hottest new games to all-time classics, plus we have exciting promotions and slot tournaments year-round. Come play the latest slots and dine at our award-winning restaurant, Ribbonwood. Our Mountain Sky Travel Center includes a gas station, convenience store and delicious Krispy Krunchy Chicken, pizza, and more.

NAICS: 713
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 84
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/fire-keepers-casino.jpeg
FireKeepers Casino Hotel
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/cahuilla-creek-casino.jpeg
Cahuilla Casino Hotel
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
FireKeepers Casino Hotel
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cahuilla Casino Hotel
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FireKeepers Casino Hotel in 2025.

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cahuilla Casino Hotel in 2025.

Incident History — FireKeepers Casino Hotel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FireKeepers Casino Hotel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cahuilla Casino Hotel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cahuilla Casino Hotel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fire-keepers-casino.jpeg
FireKeepers Casino Hotel
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cahuilla-creek-casino.jpeg
Cahuilla Casino Hotel
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

FireKeepers Casino Hotel company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cahuilla Casino Hotel company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Cahuilla Casino Hotel company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to FireKeepers Casino Hotel company.

In the current year, Cahuilla Casino Hotel company and FireKeepers Casino Hotel company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cahuilla Casino Hotel company nor FireKeepers Casino Hotel company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cahuilla Casino Hotel company nor FireKeepers Casino Hotel company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cahuilla Casino Hotel company nor FireKeepers Casino Hotel company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel company nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel company nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

FireKeepers Casino Hotel company employs more people globally than Cahuilla Casino Hotel company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel holds HIPAA certification.

Neither FireKeepers Casino Hotel nor Cahuilla Casino Hotel 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