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

Comparison Overview

Pizza HutPizza Hut
VS
Waffle House, Inc.Waffle House, Inc.
Pizza Hut

Pizza Hut

7100 Corporate Dr, Plano, 75024, US

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://pizzahut.com
802/1000Good

Pizza Hut, a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, Inc. (NYSE: YUM), was founded in 1958 in Wichita, Kansas, and is a global leader in the pizza category with nearly 20,000 restaurants in more than 110 markets and territories. The brand has earned a reputation as a trailblazer in ...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:86,201
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Waffle House, Inc.

Waffle House, Inc.

5986 Financial Dr NW, Norcross, 30071, US

Last Update: 19/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.wafflehouse.com/
787/1000Fair

Waffle House has been serving Good Food Fast® since 1955. We started in one restaurant serving Avondale Estates, GA, and then grew into a national brand with more than 1,900 restaurants in 25 states providing career paths to 40,000 + employees. The love and devotion o...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:27,728
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pizza Hut

Pizza Hut

-
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
Waffle House, Inc.

Waffle House, Inc.

-
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 Pizza Hut in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Waffle House, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Pizza Hut (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pizza Hut cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Waffle House, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Waffle House, Inc. 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...
Pizza Hut

Pizza Hut

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PIZ857072725
Waffle House, Inc.

Waffle House, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9