Comparison Overview

Ticketmaster

VS

Cinemark

Ticketmaster

325 N Maple Dr, None, Beverly Hills, California, US, 90210
Last Update: 2025-11-24

Ticketmaster gives millions of fans – worldwide – fair and easy access to the biggest and best in live entertainment. Driven by innovation, unparalleled scalability, and unmatched support, we are the definitive leader in professional ticketing solutions. Over 12,000 artists, teams, and venues around the world trust us to power their amazing performances daily — with more than 500 million tickets sold each year. We are a diverse team of 6,500+ global employees and a proud division of Live Nation Entertainment (NYSE: LYV), the world’s leading live entertainment company and an organization certified as a Great Place to Work®. Everything we do starts with our passion to dream, design, and deliver the unforgettable experience of live. Because we’re fans too — and live only happens once.

NAICS: 71
NAICS Definition: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees: 6,768
Subsidiaries: 26
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Cinemark

3900 Dallas Parkway, Plano, TX, 75093, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Headquartered in Plano, TX, Cinemark Holdings, Inc. provides premium out-of-home entertainment experiences as one of the largest and most influential theatrical exhibition companies in the world with 497 theatres and 5,653 screens in the U.S. and Latin America as of December 31, 2024. • Our circuit is the third largest in the U.S. with 304 theatres and 4,255 screens in 42 states. • We ranked either #1 or #2 in box office revenues in 21 of our top 25 markets. • We are one of the most geographically diverse circuits in Latin America with 193 theatres and 1,398 screens in 13 countries. • We had a presence in 15 of the top 20 metropolitan cities in South and Central America.

NAICS: 71
NAICS Definition: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees: 11,258
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/ticketmaster.jpeg
Ticketmaster
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/cinemark.jpeg
Cinemark
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
Ticketmaster
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cinemark
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Average (This Year)

Ticketmaster has 28.21% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cinemark in 2025.

Incident History — Ticketmaster (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ticketmaster cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cinemark (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cinemark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ticketmaster.jpeg
Ticketmaster
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: SQL injection vulnerabilities, Insider access mechanisms, Zero-day vulnerabilities
Motivation: Financial gain through selling data on dark web marketplaces
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Exploitation of vulnerabilities in cloud storage services
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to Snowflake Account
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cinemark.jpeg
Cinemark
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cinemark company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ticketmaster company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Ticketmaster company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Cinemark company has not reported any.

In the current year, Ticketmaster company has reported more cyber incidents than Cinemark company.

Neither Cinemark company nor Ticketmaster company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Ticketmaster company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Cinemark company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Ticketmaster company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Cinemark company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ticketmaster company nor Cinemark company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Cinemark holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Ticketmaster company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cinemark company.

Cinemark company employs more people globally than Ticketmaster company, reflecting its scale as a Entertainment Providers.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Cinemark holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Cinemark holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Cinemark holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Cinemark holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Cinemark holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ticketmaster nor Cinemark 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