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

Comparison Overview

Taco Bell ONEUROPE                 (UK & Europe)Taco Bell ONEUROPE (UK & Europe)
VS
Burger KingBurger King
Taco Bell ONEUROPE                 (UK & Europe)

Taco Bell ONEUROPE (UK & Europe)

N/A

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tacobell.co.uk/
762/1000Fair

Born and raised in California since 1962, Taco Bell has journeyed from being a local favourite for Crunchy Tacos on the West Coast to establishing itself as a global phenomenon. With a remarkable presence spanning over 8,200 restaurants, 350 franchise organizations, and...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:86
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Burger King

Burger King

5505 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, 33126, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bk.com
775/1000Fair

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 f...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:126,433
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Taco Bell ONEUROPE                 (UK & Europe)

Taco Bell ONEUROPE (UK & Europe)

-
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
Burger King

Burger King

-
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 Taco Bell ONEUROPE (UK & Europe) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Burger King in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Taco Bell ONEUROPE (UK & Europe) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Taco Bell ONEUROPE (UK & Europe) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Burger King 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...
Taco Bell ONEUROPE                 (UK & Europe)

Taco Bell ONEUROPE (UK & Europe)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Burger King

Burger King

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MCD344071125
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
BUR22818923
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
BUR22620323

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9