Comparison Overview

Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort

VS

BoyleSports

Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort

undefined, Deadwood, undefined, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Experience a true gamers paradise, featuring the newest and most rewarding Player’s Club in Deadwood! Experience non-stop casino action with 160 of the hottest slot machines, live blackjack, delicious meals and free on-site parking. Conveniently located on Main Street, Tin Lizzie Casino is known as the local’s choice for premier gaming in Deadwood. Our player’s club offers you more of what you play for, while our staff and management lavish you with the hospitality you deserve!

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

BoyleSports

Finnabair Ind Estate, Dundalk, Co Louth, undefined, IE
Last Update: 2025-11-27

BoyleSports is the largest and most successful independently-owned bookmaker on the island of Ireland. Founded in 1982 by John Boyle, the business has grown to over 375 shops in Ireland & the UK and now offers telephone, mobile and internet betting and gaming services in Ireland, the UK and a range of other international markets. BoyleSports HQ in the Republic of Ireland is located on the outskirts of Dundalk which straddles the border with Northern Ireland. The company currently employs over 2,700 employees across Ireland, the UK, Gibraltar & Manila. BoyleSports is regulated for betting and gaming activities in Ireland, the UK and Gibraltar. A Marketing Operations centre was opened in 2015, based in Ocean Village, Gibraltar, employing over 40 staff. Proud sponsors of the BoyleSports Irish Grand National at Fairyhouse, the BoyleSports Irish Greyhound Derby at Shelbourne Park, BoyleSports is also title sponsor of the PDC World Grand Prix darts.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 1,094
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/tin-lizzie-casino.jpeg
Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort
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/boylesports.jpeg
BoyleSports
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
Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BoyleSports
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 Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for BoyleSports in 2025.

Incident History — Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

BoyleSports cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tin-lizzie-casino.jpeg
Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/boylesports.jpeg
BoyleSports
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

BoyleSports company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, BoyleSports company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company.

In the current year, BoyleSports company and Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BoyleSports company nor Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither BoyleSports company nor Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither BoyleSports company nor Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company nor BoyleSports company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort nor BoyleSports holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company nor BoyleSports company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

BoyleSports company employs more people globally than Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort nor BoyleSports holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort nor BoyleSports holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort nor BoyleSports holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort nor BoyleSports holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort nor BoyleSports holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tin Lizzie Gaming Resort nor BoyleSports 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