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

Comparison Overview

Miller's Ale House RestaurantsMiller's Ale House Restaurants
VS
ZAMPZAMP
Miller's Ale House Restaurants

Miller's Ale House Restaurants

5750 Major Boulevard, Suite 400, Orlando, 32819, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

The first Miller’s Ale House opened in 1988 in Jupiter, FL, based on a ‘come as you are’ environment that quickly became known for its freshly-made food, unmatched value, personalized experience and local camaraderie. Guests loved the concept and it steadily grew to ove...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:3,464
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
ZAMP

ZAMP

São Paulo, SP, BR, 05501-050

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.zamp.com.br/
783/1000Fair

Somos um grande ecossistema de restaurantes que reúne marcas internacionais como Burger King®, Popeyes®, Starbucks® e Subway®. E, por trás de cada receita de sucesso, estão os Zampers: gente que faz acontecer, que joga junto e que deixa sua marca todos os dias. Aqui,...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:11,270
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Miller's Ale House Restaurants

Miller's Ale House Restaurants

-
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
ZAMP

ZAMP

-
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 Miller's Ale House Restaurants in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ZAMP in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Miller's Ale House Restaurants (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Miller's Ale House Restaurants cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ZAMP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ZAMP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Miller's Ale House Restaurants

Miller's Ale House Restaurants

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MIL703072825
ZAMP

ZAMP

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
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:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8