Comparison Overview

Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers

VS

Burger King

Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers

6800 Bishop Rd, Plano, Texas, 75024, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.RaisingCanes.com

Founded by Todd Graves in 1996 in Baton Rouge, La., RAISING CANE'S CHICKEN FINGERS has over 800 restaurants in 41 states, with many new restaurants under construction. The company has ONE LOVE®—craveable chicken finger meals—and is continually recognized for its unique business model and customer satisfaction. RAISING CANE'S® vision is to grow restaurants, serving our Customers, all over the world and be the brand for craveable chicken finger meals, a great Crew, cool Culture, and Active Community Involvement.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 16,248
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Burger King

5505 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, FL, US, 33126
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bk.com

The year is 1954. Dave and Jim*, two budding entrepreneurs, are on a mission to re-design the perfect broiler, one that will infuse flame-grilled goodness into every burger. And that's how our brand was born. Today the Burger King Corporation, its affiliates and its franchisees collectively operate more than 17,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories, serving over 11 million guests per day and they’re still coming back for that flame-grilled flavor. The Burger King® brand is owned by Restaurant Brands International Inc. (“RBI”), which owns three of the world’s iconic quick service restaurant brands – Burger King®, Tim Hortons®, and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen®. But we still have room to grow – and that’s where you come in. We need strong operations, bold marketing, and the best people around to make these brands great. And if we like what we see, there’s no limit to how far you could go here. For more information and exciting career opportunities, please RBI’s website at www.rbicareers.com. For more information about Burger King Corporation, please visit the company’s website at www.bk.com or follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Burger King is a registered trademark of Burger King Corporation. All rights reserved. Please visit www.bk.com for more information on Burger King Corporation trademarks. * Dave Egerton and Jim McLamore, original founders of the Burger King® brand.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 108,914
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/raising-cane's.jpeg
Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers
—
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/burger-king.jpeg
Burger King
—
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
Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Burger King
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers in 2025.

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Burger King in 2025.

Incident History — Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Burger King (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Burger King cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/raising-cane's.jpeg
Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/burger-king.jpeg
Burger King
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hard-coded Credentials, Plain-text Passwords in Emails, Unrestricted API Access, Default/Weak Passwords (e.g., 'admin')
Motivation: Ethical Hacking / Responsible Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Website Configuration Error
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Misconfigured Database
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Burger King company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Burger King company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company has not reported any.

In the current year, Burger King company has reported more cyber incidents than Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company.

Neither Burger King company nor Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Burger King company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Burger King company nor Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company nor Burger King company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers nor Burger King holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Burger King company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company.

Burger King company employs more people globally than Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers company, reflecting its scale as a Restaurants.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers nor Burger King holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers nor Burger King holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers nor Burger King holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers nor Burger King holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers nor Burger King holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers nor Burger King 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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References