Comparison Overview

SugarHouse Casino

VS

Aristocrat Gaming

SugarHouse Casino

1001 N. Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19125, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28

Our team would tell you that it’s a fact: Rivers Casino Philadelphia is the best place to work in Philly. It’s no secret why our team has voted Rivers Casino Philadelphia a “Best Place to Work” and “Top Workplace” 14 times since opening as SugarHouse Casino. Rivers Casino Philadelphia puts our Team Members first. We may not all be mathematicians, but we know the formula for success: Happy Team = Happy Customers = Success Our focus is on our Team. We provide the building blocks for a sustainable and rewarding career by creating a fun environment, providing opportunities to learn and develop, listening and taking action on team suggestions, showing appreciation, and, above all, always acting with integrity.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 319
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Aristocrat Gaming

Building A Pinnacle Office Park, North Ryde, NSW, 2113, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-26

Aristocrat Gaming is a division of Aristocrat Leisure Limited (ALL) and is the leading designer, manufacturer and distributor of Class 3 and Class 2 land-based slot games. With over 7,500 employees working in 20 locations across the globe, the company’s mission is to bring joy to life through the power of play. From award-winning games and hardware to unique game mechanics and leading performance, Aristocrat Gaming delivers the best seat in the house wherever and whenever the world plays. Our values of Talent Unleashed, All About the Player, Collective Brilliance and Good Business, Good Citizen guide and inspire us to live our mission of bringing joy to life through the power of play – every day. Come and join us – let’s play!

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 4,734
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sugar-house-casino.jpeg
SugarHouse Casino
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/aristocrat.jpeg
Aristocrat Gaming
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
SugarHouse Casino
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Aristocrat Gaming
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SugarHouse Casino in 2025.

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aristocrat Gaming in 2025.

Incident History — SugarHouse Casino (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SugarHouse Casino cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Aristocrat Gaming (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aristocrat Gaming cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sugar-house-casino.jpeg
SugarHouse Casino
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aristocrat.jpeg
Aristocrat Gaming
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Aristocrat Gaming company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to SugarHouse Casino company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Aristocrat Gaming company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to SugarHouse Casino company.

In the current year, Aristocrat Gaming company and SugarHouse Casino company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Aristocrat Gaming company nor SugarHouse Casino company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Aristocrat Gaming company nor SugarHouse Casino company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Aristocrat Gaming company nor SugarHouse Casino company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither SugarHouse Casino company nor Aristocrat Gaming company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither SugarHouse Casino nor Aristocrat Gaming holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither SugarHouse Casino company nor Aristocrat Gaming company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Aristocrat Gaming company employs more people globally than SugarHouse Casino company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither SugarHouse Casino nor Aristocrat Gaming holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither SugarHouse Casino nor Aristocrat Gaming holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither SugarHouse Casino nor Aristocrat Gaming holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither SugarHouse Casino nor Aristocrat Gaming holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither SugarHouse Casino nor Aristocrat Gaming holds HIPAA certification.

Neither SugarHouse Casino nor Aristocrat Gaming 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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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