Comparison Overview

Krispy Kreme

VS

Coca-Cola HBC

Krispy Kreme

2116 Hawkins St, Charlotte, North Carolina, US, 28203
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 550 and 599

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Krispy Kreme is one of the most beloved and well-known sweet treat brands in the world. Our iconic Original Glazed® doughnut is universally recognized for its hot-off-the-line, melt-in-your-mouth experience. Krispy Kreme operates in more than 40 countries through its unique network of fresh doughnut shops, partnerships with leading retailers, and a rapidly growing digital business. Our purpose of touching and enhancing lives through the joy that is Krispy Kreme guides how we operate every day and is reflected in the love we have for our people, our communities, and the planet.

NAICS: 722
NAICS Definition: Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees: 10,045
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Coca-Cola HBC

Turmstrasse 30, None, Zug, None, CH, 6300
Last Update: 2025-11-20

We bottle and sell the beverages of The Coca-Cola Company exclusively in our 29 markets and partner with other beverage businesses to also sell their brands. With over 100 brands covering eight categories – sparkling, water, juices, ready-to-drink tea, energy, plant-based, premium spirits and coffee, we help our customers delight consumers with the drink they want, when and where they want it, around the clock. These brands cater to a growing range of tastes with a wider choice of healthier options, premium products and increasingly sustainable packaging. Sustainability is integrated within every aspect of our business. It is fundamental to our business strategy, which aims to create and share value with all of our stakeholders. This defines how we run our business, carry out our activities and develop our relationships. In doing so, we foster an open and inclusive work environment with our 33,000+ employees who share a passion for serving our customers and communities and building a more positive environmental impact.

NAICS: 722
NAICS Definition: Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees: 19,385
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/krispy-kreme.jpeg
Krispy Kreme
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/coca-cola-hbc.jpeg
Coca-Cola HBC
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
Krispy Kreme
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Coca-Cola HBC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Krispy Kreme in 2025.

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coca-Cola HBC in 2025.

Incident History — Krispy Kreme (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Krispy Kreme cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Coca-Cola HBC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coca-Cola HBC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/krispy-kreme.jpeg
Krispy Kreme
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: financial gain, data theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2024
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coca-cola-hbc.jpeg
Coca-Cola HBC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Coca-Cola HBC company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Krispy Kreme company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Krispy Kreme company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Coca-Cola HBC company has not reported any.

In the current year, Coca-Cola HBC company and Krispy Kreme company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Krispy Kreme company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Coca-Cola HBC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Krispy Kreme company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Coca-Cola HBC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Krispy Kreme company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Coca-Cola HBC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Krispy Kreme company nor Coca-Cola HBC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Krispy Kreme nor Coca-Cola HBC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Krispy Kreme company nor Coca-Cola HBC company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Coca-Cola HBC company employs more people globally than Krispy Kreme company, reflecting its scale as a Food and Beverage Services.

Neither Krispy Kreme nor Coca-Cola HBC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Krispy Kreme nor Coca-Cola HBC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Krispy Kreme nor Coca-Cola HBC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Krispy Kreme nor Coca-Cola HBC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Krispy Kreme nor Coca-Cola HBC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Krispy Kreme nor Coca-Cola HBC 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