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

Comparison Overview

Schlitterbahn Waterparks & ResortSchlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort
VS
SonySony
Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort

Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort

381 E Austin St, New Braunfels, Texas, 78130, US

Last Update: 12/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.schlitterbahn.com
766/1000Fair

Schlitterbahn has been voted the World’s Best Waterpark for 23 consecutive years and is the acknowledged leader in family-friendly water-based entertainment since 1979. Schlitterbahn has parks in Galveston and in New Braunfels, along with a resort in New Braunfels. Schl...

NAICS:71
NAICS Definition:Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees:564
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Sony

Sony

1-7-1 Konan,, Tokyo, 108-0075, JP

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.sony.com/en/
631/1000Poor

Sony’s purpose is simple. We aim to fill the world with emotion, through the power of creativity and technology. We want to be responsible for getting hearts racing, stirring ambition, and putting a smile on the faces of our customers. That challenge, combined with our ...

NAICS:71
NAICS Definition:Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees:24,834
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort

Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort

-
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
Sony

Sony

-
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 Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)

Sony has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Sony (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sony 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...
Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort

Schlitterbahn Waterparks & Resort

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sony

Sony

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SON1785335583
🔒 Incident : Breach
SALLASAMDSNOSONOKT1773153462
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SAL5592855100325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA