Comparison Overview
Papa Johns

Papa Johns
788 Circle 75 Pkwy SE, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30339
Last Update: 17/09/2026
Papa Johns seeks people who have an entrepreneurial spirit and share our philosophy for success. Hands-on training, a clean and safe work environment, quality business practices, advancement opportunities and meaningful work combine to produce not only the best pizza, b...

Jack in the Box
9357 Spectrum Center Blvd, San Diego, California, US, 92123
Last Update: 05/09/2026
Jack in the Box has always been the place for those who live outside the box. Where you can try new things and order what you want when you want it. Now, let’s get to the facts! Did you know Jack in the Box was founded on February 21, 1951, by a businessman named Robert...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Papa Johns







Jack in the Box






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Papa Johns in 2026.
Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Jack in the Box in 2026.
Incident History - Papa Johns (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Papa Johns cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Jack in the Box (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Jack in the Box cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Papa Johns

Jack in the Box
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.
A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.
A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).
In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).
A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.