Comparison Overview

SONIC

VS

Pizza Hut

SONIC

3 Glenlake Pkwy NE, None, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30328
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

SONIC®, America’s Drive-In®, is part of the Inspire Brands family of restaurants. Inspire is a multi-brand restaurant company whose portfolio includes more than 8,300 Arby’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, and SONIC locations worldwide.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 1,682
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Pizza Hut

7100 Corporate Dr, Plano, 75024, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

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 innovation with the creation of icons like Original® Pan and Original® Stuffed Crust pizzas. In 1994, Pizza Hut pizza was the very first online food order, and today Pizza Hut continues leading the way in the digital and technology space with over half of transactions worldwide coming from digital orders. Leveraging its global presence, Pizza Hut also works to positively impact restaurant employees, the communities they serve and the environment through commitments across three priority areas: More Equity, Less Carbon and Better Packaging.

NAICS: 7225
NAICS Definition: Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees: 87,544
Subsidiaries: 27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sonic-drive-in.jpeg
SONIC
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/pizza-hut.jpeg
Pizza Hut
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
SONIC
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Pizza Hut
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SONIC in 2026.

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pizza Hut in 2026.

Incident History — SONIC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SONIC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Pizza Hut cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sonic-drive-in.jpeg
SONIC
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2017
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Malware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pizza-hut.jpeg
Pizza Hut
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Misconfigured Cloud Storage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Misconfigured AWS S3 bucket
Motivation: Opportunistic (unauthorized access due to misconfiguration)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 04/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Pizza Hut company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to SONIC company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Pizza Hut company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to SONIC company.

In the current year, Pizza Hut company and SONIC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Pizza Hut company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while SONIC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Pizza Hut company has disclosed at least one data breach, while SONIC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

SONIC company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Pizza Hut company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither SONIC company nor Pizza Hut company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither SONIC nor Pizza Hut holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Pizza Hut company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to SONIC company.

Pizza Hut company employs more people globally than SONIC company, reflecting its scale as a Restaurants.

Neither SONIC nor Pizza Hut holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither SONIC nor Pizza Hut holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither SONIC nor Pizza Hut holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither SONIC nor Pizza Hut holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither SONIC nor Pizza Hut holds HIPAA certification.

Neither SONIC nor Pizza Hut holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H