Comparison Overview

Tonybet

VS

Roxor Gaming

Tonybet

Pärnu mnt 31-53, Harjumaa, Tallinn , 10119, EE
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Established in 2011, Tonybet has always been at the forefront of the gambling industry. For over 13 years we have provided the safest, fairest, and most trusted online betting environment for players worldwide. Tonybet, operating on SoftLabs gaming platform, has grown exponentially in the last 2 years and present in multiple jurisdictions across the world, with 9 online gambling licenses and 9 international offices. Tonybet is aware of its responsibility to customers and society and provides the best practices regarding the protection of players' interests and responsible gaming. We aim to meet high standards in everything we do and are always looking for ways to improve. Great results can only be achieved in a great environment, so we take great care to provide our employees with the best possible conditions for working and growing as professionals.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 123
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Roxor Gaming

25 Golden Square, London, England, W1F 9LS, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Roxor Gaming was formed in September 2019 as a B2B content supplier. We may seem relatively new to the industry, but Roxor Gaming has built casino content for over 20 years as part of Gamesys (a Ballys’ Corporation Company). As a result, we already have the history, the scale, and market-leading brands. We enjoy entertaining but consider ourselves more than just an average games provider! Our ecosystem makes our games quite simply the most rewarding available in the market today. Thanks to our strong heritage, we have a unique understanding of what makes a great player experience.

NAICS: 713
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 48
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tonybet.jpeg
Tonybet
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/roxor-gaming.jpeg
Roxor Gaming
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
Tonybet
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Roxor Gaming
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 Tonybet in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Roxor Gaming in 2025.

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

Tonybet cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Roxor Gaming (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Roxor Gaming cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tonybet.jpeg
Tonybet
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/roxor-gaming.jpeg
Roxor Gaming
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Zero-day vulnerability
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Roxor Gaming company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Tonybet company has not reported any.

In the current year, Roxor Gaming company and Tonybet company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Roxor Gaming company nor Tonybet company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Roxor Gaming company nor Tonybet company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Roxor Gaming company nor Tonybet company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Roxor Gaming company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Tonybet company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Tonybet nor Roxor Gaming holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Roxor Gaming company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Tonybet company.

Tonybet company employs more people globally than Roxor Gaming company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither Tonybet nor Roxor Gaming holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tonybet nor Roxor Gaming holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tonybet nor Roxor Gaming holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tonybet nor Roxor Gaming holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tonybet nor Roxor Gaming holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tonybet nor Roxor Gaming 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