Comparison Overview

Pavilion Payments

VS

Little River Casino Resort

Pavilion Payments

7201 W Lake Mead Blvd , 501, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89128
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Pavilion Payments enables the world’s gaming entertainment leaders to create amazing consumer experiences and maximize spend across all of their physical and digital properties. Our complete suite of payment solutions enables safe, secure and trusted cash access at the cage, on the casino floor, or online. Our compliance and security solutions offer additional layers of automation and risk protection. And our analytics solutions enable clients to view performance across all of their gaming properties. Visit our website at pavilionpayments.com to learn more about our solutions for casino debit and credit card cash advance, e-check, ATM, full-service TITO and payment kiosks, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance assistance, layered security, and analytics.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 149
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Little River Casino Resort

2700 Orchard Hwy, Manistee, 49660, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Nestled by the Victorian port city of Manistee, you'll find one of Michigan's most exciting entertainment destinations, Little River Casino Resort! We offer over 1,500 slots and table games, three restaurants, 292 hotel rooms, and an event center featuring national headling acts. You can also follow us on Twitter: @LittleRiverFun

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 328
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pavilion-payments.jpeg
Pavilion Payments
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/little-river-casino-resort.jpeg
Little River Casino Resort
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Pavilion Payments
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Little River Casino Resort
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pavilion Payments in 2025.

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Little River Casino Resort in 2025.

Incident History — Pavilion Payments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pavilion Payments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Little River Casino Resort (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Little River Casino Resort cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pavilion-payments.jpeg
Pavilion Payments
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/little-river-casino-resort.jpeg
Little River Casino Resort
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Little River Casino Resort company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Pavilion Payments company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Little River Casino Resort company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Pavilion Payments company.

In the current year, Little River Casino Resort company and Pavilion Payments company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Little River Casino Resort company nor Pavilion Payments company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Little River Casino Resort company nor Pavilion Payments company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Little River Casino Resort company nor Pavilion Payments company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Pavilion Payments company nor Little River Casino Resort company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Pavilion Payments nor Little River Casino Resort holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Pavilion Payments company nor Little River Casino Resort company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Little River Casino Resort company employs more people globally than Pavilion Payments company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither Pavilion Payments nor Little River Casino Resort holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Pavilion Payments nor Little River Casino Resort holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Pavilion Payments nor Little River Casino Resort holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Pavilion Payments nor Little River Casino Resort holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Pavilion Payments nor Little River Casino Resort holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Pavilion Payments nor Little River Casino Resort holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: 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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H