Comparison Overview

The Pools

VS

Prairie Flower Casino

The Pools

Walton House, 55 Charnock Road, Liverpool, United Kingdom, L67 1AA, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

The Pools is celebrating 100 years of creating winners! Over 16,000 winners every year across the UK. Under the ownership of OpCapita and founded as Littlewoods Pools in 1923 The Football Pools is widely known as one of the first pool betting companies established in the UK. In 2007, Littlewoods Pools acquired Vernons pools, bringing together hundreds of thousands of customers and years of winning experience! The tradition of creating big winners every week continues today across a range of products, including football, lottery and instant win games. As the business grows from strength to strength, we want to grow the most talented team in the betting and gaming industry to drive our ambitions for the future. Our current team of around 150 employees includes specialists in the areas of pool betting, Marketing, Legal and Compliance, finance, IT development and operations. For more information, visit footballpools.com and click the link to view our latest vacancies.

NAICS: 713
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 69
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Prairie Flower Casino

1031 Avenue H, Carter Lake, Iowa, 51510, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Located just south of the Omaha airport, Abbott Drive & Avenue H in Carter Lake, IA. Prairie Flower Casino is owned and operated by the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. We are proud of our Mission: As diverse and caring allies of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, the Prairie Flower Casino team continually focuses on generating revenue to improve our communities. We embrace this as our WHY, because what we do fuels a Nation.

NAICS: 713
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 55
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/the-football-pools-limited.jpeg
The Pools
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/play-longer-win-more.jpeg
Prairie Flower 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
Compliance Summary
The Pools
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Prairie Flower Casino
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 The Pools in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Prairie Flower Casino in 2025.

Incident History — The Pools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Pools cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Prairie Flower Casino cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-football-pools-limited.jpeg
The Pools
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/play-longer-win-more.jpeg
Prairie Flower Casino
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Prairie Flower Casino company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Pools company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Prairie Flower Casino company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Pools company.

In the current year, Prairie Flower Casino company and The Pools company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Prairie Flower Casino company nor The Pools company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Prairie Flower Casino company nor The Pools company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Prairie Flower Casino company nor The Pools company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Pools company nor Prairie Flower Casino company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Pools nor Prairie Flower Casino holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Pools company nor Prairie Flower Casino company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Pools company employs more people globally than Prairie Flower Casino company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither The Pools nor Prairie Flower Casino holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Pools nor Prairie Flower Casino holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Pools nor Prairie Flower Casino holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Pools nor Prairie Flower Casino holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Pools nor Prairie Flower Casino holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Pools nor Prairie Flower Casino 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