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

Comparison Overview

Panera BreadPanera Bread
VS
Red LobsterRed Lobster
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

1400 S Highway Dr, Fenton, 63026, US

Last Update: 27/07/2026

View Profile
371/1000Critical

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
4
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2
Red Lobster

Red Lobster

450 S Orange Ave, Orlando, 32801, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.redlobster.com
781/1000Fair

With over 30,000 employees and more than 500 restaurants in the United States and Canada, Red Lobster is the world’s largest seafood restaurant company. Our vision is to be where the world goes for seafood now and for generations. Red Lobster is an innovative, values...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:17,383
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
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
Red Lobster

Red Lobster

-
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)

Panera Bread has 87.79% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Red Lobster in 2026.

Incidents

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

Incident History - Red Lobster (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Lobster 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...
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANADTSAL1777328877
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCGSUBAMTADTHALPANCARBET1785169886
🔒 Incident : Breach
MATBUMCRUPAN1770710058
Red Lobster

Red Lobster

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-45537
SUMMARY

OpenSIPS is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) server implementation. In versions prior to 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1, the construct_uri() function concatenates multiple URI components (protocol, username, domain, port, params) into a fixed 1024-byte global BSS buffer without any bounds checking. When a routing script calls construct_uri() with an attacker-controlled username, a combined component length exceeding 1024 bytes overflows the buffer, corrupting adjacent global data with attacker-controlled content. The overflow reaches disable_503_translation, a global flag controlling SIP 503 response handling, allowing an attacker to deterministically set the flag via the URI username and alter the server's routing behavior for subsequent messages. Because the same buffer is shared with contact_builder(), the overflow also corrupts that function's data, and without a memory sanitizer the adjacent globals are silently overwritten on every request containing a long username. This issue has been fixed in versions 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-18819
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: "[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
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: 2.1
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: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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-18818
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Ehco1996 django-sspanel up to 2023.12.26. This affects the function TicketDetailView of the file apps/sspanel/views.py of the component Support Ticket Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-70620
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit 87babb5 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows admin-privileged attackers to direct the server to probe internal network resources by supplying arbitrary URLs to the embedding endpoint configuration without scheme, host, IP range, or DNS rebind validation. Attackers can submit loopback addresses, RFC 1918 ranges, or link-local addresses through the embedding endpoint API to partially read responses from cloud instance metadata services, internal APIs, and other hosts reachable from the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-70619
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit bf325f6 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated non-admin users to manage server-wide embedding backend configuration by invoking endpoint management routes that verify session authentication but omit the admin authorization guard. Attackers can supply an attacker-controlled URL to overwrite the embedding backend persisted in the endpoint configuration file and process environment, causing all subsequent embedding operations including chat messages, RAG queries, memory entries, and vault text to be transmitted in plaintext to the attacker-controlled destination, or delete the endpoint configuration to deny embedding service to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
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