Comparison Overview

Jack in the Box

VS

Chili's

Jack in the Box

9357 Spectrum Center Blvd, None, San Diego, California, US, 92123
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Jack in the Box has always been the place for those who live outside the box. Where you can try new things and order what you want when you want it. Now, let’s get to the facts! Did you know Jack in the Box was founded on February 21, 1951, by a businessman named Robert O. Peterson in San Diego, California? Yeah, you probably did. Did you know Jack in the Box pioneered a number of firsts in the quick-serve industry, including menu items that are now staples on most fast-food menu boards, like the breakfast sandwich and portable salads. Sure. Did you know Jack in the Box has over 2000 locations? Everyone knows that. Whatever the reason you came to Jack in the Box's LinkedIn page...welcome, we’re happy to have you here.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 23,896
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Chili's

3000 Olympus Blvd, Dallas, Texas, 75019, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Chili's opened as a fun Dallas burger joint with a loyalty to happy hour and blue jeans. We prided ourselves on our humble beginnings, following a devotion to great food, warm hospitality and community spirit. Today, with restaurants all over the world, we continue to cook up the best in casual fare, offering the same genuine service we did way back when. And, just as in 1975, we're committed to giving back to the communities that have helped us grow. Driven to perform? Insist on loving what you do? Then you have a lot in common with us. If you’re passionate about delivering hospitality to every guest, every day, please visit us online today at ChilisJobs.com.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 28,424
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jack-in-the-box.jpeg
Jack in the Box
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/chili's.jpeg
Chili's
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
Jack in the Box
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Chili's
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jack in the Box in 2025.

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chili's in 2025.

Incident History — Jack in the Box (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jack in the Box cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Chili's (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chili's cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jack-in-the-box.jpeg
Jack in the Box
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chili's.jpeg
Chili's
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2018
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Chili's company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Jack in the Box company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Jack in the Box and Chili's have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Chili's company and Jack in the Box company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Chili's company nor Jack in the Box company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Chili's company and Jack in the Box company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Chili's company nor Jack in the Box company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Jack in the Box company nor Chili's company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jack in the Box nor Chili's holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Chili's company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Jack in the Box company.

Chili's company employs more people globally than Jack in the Box company, reflecting its scale as a Restaurants.

Neither Jack in the Box nor Chili's holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jack in the Box nor Chili's holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jack in the Box nor Chili's holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jack in the Box nor Chili's holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jack in the Box nor Chili's holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jack in the Box nor Chili's 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