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

Comparison Overview

KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)
VS
Taco BellTaco Bell
KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)

KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)

Frenchs Forest, Sydney, NSW, AU, 2086

Last Update: 28/09/2026

View Profile
766/1000Fair

Take one man with a big idea and an obsession with chicken perfection. Add 11 herbs and spices, grit, ambition and buckets of heart – you’ve got KFC. Since 1952, we’ve been bringing finger lickin’ good chicken to the world. But without our people, The Originals, none of...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:658
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Taco Bell

Taco Bell

1 Glen Bell Way, Irvine, CA, US, 92618

Last Update: 20/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://tacobell.com
753/1000Fair

Taco Bell was born and raised in California and has been around since 1962. We went from selling everyone’s favorite Crunchy Tacos on the West Coast to a global brand with 8,200+ restaurants, 350 franchise organizations, that serve 42+ million fans each week around the ...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:83,616
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)

KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)

-
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
Taco Bell

Taco Bell

-
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)

No incidents recorded for KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Taco Bell in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Taco Bell (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Taco Bell 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...
KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)

KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Taco Bell

Taco Bell

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NORKFCFOHTACHYA1769001351

FAQ

Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) company and Taco Bell company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) and Taco Bell, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) and Taco Bell, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) or Taco Bell ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) or Taco Bell ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) and Taco Bell, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between KFC South Pacific (Yum! Brands Subsidiary) and Taco Bell, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8