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

Comparison Overview

Panda Restaurant GroupPanda Restaurant Group
VS
In-N-Out BurgerIn-N-Out Burger
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

1683 Walnut Grove Ave, Rosemead, 91770, US

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://PandaCareers.com
714/1000Moderate

Panda Restaurant Group is the global leader in Asian dining and includes Panda Express, Panda Inn, and more. Founded in 1973 by Andrew and Peggy Cherng, we are a family-owned business with more than 2,600 restaurants worldwide. Our mission is to deliver exceptional Asia...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:17,796
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
In-N-Out Burger

In-N-Out Burger

4199 Campus Drive, Irvine, 92612, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.in-n-out.com
781/1000Fair

In-N-Out Burger was founded in 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder in Baldwin Park, California, and remains privately owned and operated. Under the direction of the Snyder family, the company has opened restaurants throughout California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Texas, Orego...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:13,366
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

-
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
In-N-Out Burger

In-N-Out Burger

-
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 Panda Restaurant Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for In-N-Out Burger in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Panda Restaurant Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Panda Restaurant Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - In-N-Out Burger (X = Date, Y = Severity)

In-N-Out Burger 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...
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAN012080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANELP1770733073
In-N-Out Burger

In-N-Out Burger

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group company and In-N-Out Burger company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group and In-N-Out Burger, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group and In-N-Out Burger, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Panda Restaurant Group or In-N-Out Burger ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Panda Restaurant Group or In-N-Out Burger ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group and In-N-Out Burger, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Panda Restaurant Group and In-N-Out Burger, 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