Comparison Overview
Take-Two Interactive

Take-Two Interactive
110 W 44th St, New York, 10036, US
Last Update: 11/04/2026
Headquartered in New York City, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is a leading developer, publisher, and marketer of interactive entertainment for consumers around the globe. We develop and publish products principally through Rockstar Games, 2K, and Zynga. Our stra...

Universal Orlando Resort
1000 Universal Studios Plaza, Orlando, 32819, US
Last Update: 05/04/2026
For years, we’ve been creating a legacy of unforgettable experiences for our Guests. Our Guests are immersed into the sights and sounds of some of the greatest movies and most legendary stories, and our Team Members are the ones who help make those incredible experience...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Take-Two Interactive







Universal Orlando Resort






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)
Take-Two Interactive has 50.98% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Universal Orlando Resort in 2026.
Incident History - Take-Two Interactive (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Take-Two Interactive cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Universal Orlando Resort (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Universal Orlando Resort cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Take-Two Interactive

Universal Orlando Resort
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.