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

Comparison Overview

TheFork Germany - Austria - SwitzerlandTheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland
VS
Panda Restaurant GroupPanda Restaurant Group
TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland

TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland

Deichstaße 9, Hamburg, undefined, undefined, DE

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.thefork.de
758/1000Fair

At TheFork we believe that the best things in life happen around the table and we are on a mission to connect the worlds' favorite restaurants and the broadest community of loyal diners. 🍽️ With thousands of incredible restaurants in our platform, finding the best din...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

1683 Walnut Grove Ave, Rosemead, 91770, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://PandaCareers.com
707/1000Moderate

Panda Restaurant Group is the global leader in Asian dining and includes Panda Express, Panda Inn, and more. Founded in 1973 by Andrew and Peggy Cherng, we are a family-owned business with more than 2,600 restaurants worldwide. Our mission is to deliver exceptional Asia...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:17,796
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland

TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland

-
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
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

-
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 TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Panda Restaurant Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Panda Restaurant Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Panda Restaurant Group 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...
TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland

TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Panda Restaurant Group

Panda Restaurant Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAN012080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
PANELP1770733073

FAQ

Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland company and Panda Restaurant Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland and Panda Restaurant Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland and Panda Restaurant Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland or Panda Restaurant Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland or Panda Restaurant Group ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland and Panda Restaurant Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between TheFork Germany - Austria - Switzerland and Panda Restaurant Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA