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

Comparison Overview

Restaurant Brands AustraliaRestaurant Brands Australia
VS
Panera BreadPanera Bread
Restaurant Brands Australia

Restaurant Brands Australia

Sydney, NSW, AU, 2009

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
655/1000Weak

Restaurant Brands Australia is a corporate franchisee and specialises in managing multi-site branded food retail chains. Its restaurant support centre is located in Sydney, NSW. Restaurant Brands is listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange under NZX code RBD and on the ...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:79
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

1400 S Highway Dr, Fenton, 63026, US

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile
493/1000Critical

Our first bakery-cafe opened in 1987, founded with a secret sourdough starter and the belief that the best part of bread is sharing it. That vision led to the invention of the Fast Casual category with Panera at the forefront, centered around our delicious menu of chef-...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:42,855
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Restaurant Brands Australia

Restaurant Brands Australia

-
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
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

-
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 Restaurant Brands Australia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

Panera Bread has 188.46% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Restaurant Brands Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Restaurant Brands Australia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Panera Bread (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Panera Bread 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...
Restaurant Brands Australia

Restaurant Brands Australia

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RES2944529100325
Panera Bread

Panera Bread

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANADTSAL1777328877
🔒 Incident : Breach
MATBUMCRUPAN1770710058
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANEDMCAR1769547392

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8