Comparison Overview

Pilot Flying J

VS

SPAR South Africa

Pilot Flying J

5508 Lonas Rd., Knoxville, Tennessee, 37909, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Company Overview Headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, Pilot Flying J is the largest operator of travel centers in North America with more than 750 locations throughout the United States and Canada and employs more than 24,000 Team Members. Pilot Flying J services over a million guests every day. History Founded by James Haslam II, the first Pilot gas station was opened in Gate City, Virginia, in 1958. After more than four decades of rapid growth, expansion and partnership, Pilot and Marathon Oil Company entered an agreement to form Pilot Travel Centers in 2001. Over the years, Pilot Travel Centers experienced significant growth and expanded internationally, opening its first travel center in Canada in 2006. In 2007, Pilot bought Marathon Petroleum’s shares and entered a new partnership with CVC Capital Partner in 2008. Two years later, Pilot Travel Centers and Flying J Inc. entered an agreement, officially creating Pilot Flying J on July 1, 2010. Culture Pilot Flying J is a family-owned and operated business. While much has changed over the last fifty-plus years, Pilot Flying J stands by the same principles upon which it was founded decades ago: integrity, customer service and valuing team members.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 11,982
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

SPAR South Africa

22 Chancery Lane, Pinetown, 3610, ZA
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 800 and 849

There’s something different about shopping at SPAR, that’s because we’ve created a culture of caring and community to ensure our customers have a consistently enjoyable shopping experience in a uniquely friendly and family orientated store. Nothing means more to us than our valued customers and we believe in going the extra mile to give them the best. From sourcing the finest products to providing willing and efficient staff who take a personal interest in our customers’ needs. In the 1960’s a group made up of 8 wholesalers were given exclusive rights to the SPAR name and brand in 1963 and serviced 500 small retailers. Through business acquisitions and organic growth, today the SPAR Group Ltd operates 6 distribution centres and 1 Build it distribution centre (building materials) and 1 pharmaceutical distribution centre (S BUYS), supplying goods and services to more than 2,000 SPAR stores across Southern Africa.

NAICS: 43
NAICS Definition: Retail Trade
Employees: 22,053
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/pilot-flying-j.jpeg
Pilot Flying J
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/spar.jpeg
SPAR South Africa
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
Pilot Flying J
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SPAR South Africa
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pilot Flying J in 2025.

Incidents vs Retail Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SPAR South Africa in 2025.

Incident History — Pilot Flying J (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pilot Flying J cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — SPAR South Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SPAR South Africa cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pilot-flying-j.jpeg
Pilot Flying J
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/spar.jpeg
SPAR South Africa
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

SPAR South Africa company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Pilot Flying J company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, SPAR South Africa company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Pilot Flying J company.

In the current year, SPAR South Africa company and Pilot Flying J company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither SPAR South Africa company nor Pilot Flying J company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither SPAR South Africa company nor Pilot Flying J company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither SPAR South Africa company nor Pilot Flying J company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Pilot Flying J company nor SPAR South Africa company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Pilot Flying J nor SPAR South Africa holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Pilot Flying J company nor SPAR South Africa company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

SPAR South Africa company employs more people globally than Pilot Flying J company, reflecting its scale as a Retail.

Neither Pilot Flying J nor SPAR South Africa holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Pilot Flying J nor SPAR South Africa holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Pilot Flying J nor SPAR South Africa holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Pilot Flying J nor SPAR South Africa holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Pilot Flying J nor SPAR South Africa holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Pilot Flying J nor SPAR South Africa 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