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

Comparison Overview

Flynn PaneraFlynn Panera
VS
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support CenterChick-fil-A Corporate Support Center
Flynn Panera

Flynn Panera

6200 Oak Tree Blvd S, Independence, 44131, US

Last Update: 27/08/2026

View Profile
698/1000Weak

​​​​Flynn Group | Panera owns and operates over 130 Panera Bread Café’s in 8 states. With annualized sales of over $350M and over 6,000 employees, Flynn Group | Panera is the third largest Panera Bread franchisee. Flynn Group | Panera is a part of Flynn Group, the larg...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:65
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

5200 Buffington Road, Atlanta, 30349, US

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
513/1000Critical

At its Atlanta headquarters, known as the Corporate Support Center, Chick-fil-A, Inc. offers full-time careers in various fields such as Digital Transformation & Technology, Financial Services & Accounting, Enterprise Analytics, Restaurant Development, Early Talent Prog...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:92,373
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
5
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Flynn Panera

Flynn Panera

-
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
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

-
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)

Flynn Panera has 50.74% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center has 390.2% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Flynn Panera (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Flynn Panera cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Flynn Panera

Flynn Panera

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AMEFLYFLYFLYFLY1787812478
Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Chick-fil-A Corporate Support Center

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI1785205686
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI1784708960
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI1784737860

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3