Comparison Overview

Holland Casino

VS

Miller Companies

Holland Casino

Neptunusstraat 71, Hoofddorp, 2130 AJ, NL
Last Update: 2025-11-22

Holland Casino operates a total of fourteen locations in all parts of the Netherlands. Each one of our casinos offers a welcoming place of entertainment, with a wide range of games and catering services for you to enjoy. Our doors are open 364 days a year for all visitors over 18 years of age, and on an annual basis, Holland Casino welcomes 1.1 million individual visitors. Holland Casino is the only true casino in the Netherlands: only at our casinos are visitors guaranteed an honest game and the highest payout percentages. Visitors to our casino feel immediately drawn to the excitement of the game. This welcoming experience is provided by our members of staff, who want to ensure that each and every visitor enjoys an unforgettable evening at the casino. If required, they can offer you tailor-made gaming and betting options, including a snack and a drink. Holland Casino is a foundation that pays its net profit to the government, excluding transfers to its equity capital. The Ministry of Finance is a quasi-shareholder and the Ministry of Security and Justice, as the licensing authority, is responsible for regulating games of chance.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 2,498
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Miller Companies

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Miller Companies manages a diverse portfolio of operations, investment, and technology companies in the regulated gaming, hospitality, technology, and aviation industries. We focus on early stage companies and special situations where our expertise can produce outsized results for all stakeholders. Today our work focuses on gaming route operations, regulated internet gaming, Indian gaming, and aviation.

NAICS: 713
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 9
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/holland-casino.jpeg
Holland Casino
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/miller-companies.jpeg
Miller Companies
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
Holland Casino
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Miller Companies
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 Holland Casino in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Miller Companies in 2025.

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

Holland Casino cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Miller Companies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Miller Companies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/holland-casino.jpeg
Holland Casino
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/miller-companies.jpeg
Miller Companies
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Holland Casino company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Miller Companies company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Miller Companies company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Holland Casino company.

In the current year, Miller Companies company and Holland Casino company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Miller Companies company nor Holland Casino company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Miller Companies company nor Holland Casino company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Miller Companies company nor Holland Casino company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Holland Casino company nor Miller Companies company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Holland Casino nor Miller Companies holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Holland Casino company nor Miller Companies company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Holland Casino company employs more people globally than Miller Companies company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither Holland Casino nor Miller Companies holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Holland Casino nor Miller Companies holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Holland Casino nor Miller Companies holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Holland Casino nor Miller Companies holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Holland Casino nor Miller Companies holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Holland Casino nor Miller Companies 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