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
Panera BreadPanera Bread
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

1683 Walnut Grove Ave, Rosemead, 91770, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://PandaCareers.com
707/1000Moderate

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
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

1400 S Highway Dr, Fenton, 63026, US

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile
493/1000Critical

Our first bakery-cafe opened in 1987, founded with a secret sourdough starter and the belief that the best part of bread is sharing it. That vision led to the invention of the Fast Casual category with Panera at the forefront, centered around our delicious menu of chef-...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:42,855
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

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
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

-
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)

Panera Bread has 180.37% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - Panera Bread (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Panera Bread 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...
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAN012080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANELP1770733073
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANADTSAL1777328877
🔒 Incident : Breach
MATBUMCRUPAN1770710058
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANEDMCAR1769547392

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA