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

Comparison Overview

Patina Restaurant GroupPatina Restaurant Group
VS
P.F. Chang'sP.F. Chang's
Patina Restaurant Group

Patina Restaurant Group

N/A

Last Update: 05/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.patinagroup.com
766/1000Fair

Founded in 1989 by esteemed Chef Joachim Splichal with its inaugural restaurant on Melrose Avenue, Patina Restaurant Group has consistently embodied excellence and creativity. Originating in Los Angeles, we were built on the conviction that culinary mastery is an art fo...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:761
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
P.F. Chang's

P.F. Chang's

8377 E Hartford Dr, #200, Scottsdale, Arizona, US, 85255

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pfchangs.com
776/1000Fair

P.F. Chang’s is a restaurant concept that honors the 2,000-year-old Asian tradition of wok cooking and believes in making food from scratch every day in every restaurant. Since inception, P.F. Chang’s chefs hand-roll dim sum, hand chop and slice all vegetables and meat...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:10,838
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Patina Restaurant Group

Patina 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
P.F. Chang's

P.F. Chang's

-
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 Patina Restaurant Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for P.F. Chang's in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - P.F. Chang's (X = Date, Y = Severity)

P.F. Chang's 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...
Patina Restaurant Group

Patina Restaurant Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
P.F. Chang's

P.F. Chang's

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PFC257080425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA