Comparison Overview

Vivo Gaming

VS

Cache Creek Casino Resort

Vivo Gaming

House of Francis, room 303, Ile Du Port, Mahe, Seychelles, Mahe, SC
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Vivo Gaming is an innovative company specializing in bringing emerging technologies into the online gaming industry with 15+ years of live dealer and B2B experience. We are a software supplier that offers a proprietary live dealer games platform streaming 24/7 from multiple studios worldwide Bulgaria, Philippines, Georgia, Uruguay, and Colombia, as well RNG and Sports platforms from the best suppliers in the world. Vivo Gaming provides top-notch gaming solutions for operators, entrepreneurs, and land-based casino owners.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 59
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Cache Creek Casino Resort

14455 Hwy 16, Brooks, CA, 95606, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Cache Creek Casino Resort is owned and operated by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation in Brooks, California. Since its humble beginnings as a bingo hall in 1985, Cache Creek Casino Resort has become one of Northern California's largest casino-resort destinations. Located 40 miles northwest of Sacramento and 80 miles from the San Francisco Bay Area, it features over 2,300 slot machines, more than 80 table games, 659 four-diamond luxury hotel rooms, 11 restaurants, a full-service spa, extraordinary entertainment in a 1,375-seat Event Center, and an 18-hole championship golf course.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 691
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vivogaming.jpeg
Vivo 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cache-creek-casino-resort.jpeg
Cache Creek Casino 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
Compliance Summary
Vivo Gaming
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cache Creek Casino Resort
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 Vivo Gaming in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Cache Creek Casino Resort in 2025.

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

Vivo Gaming cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cache Creek Casino Resort (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cache Creek Casino Resort cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vivogaming.jpeg
Vivo Gaming
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cache-creek-casino-resort.jpeg
Cache Creek Casino Resort
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Cache Creek Casino Resort company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Vivo Gaming company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cache Creek Casino Resort company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Vivo Gaming company has not reported any.

In the current year, Cache Creek Casino Resort company and Vivo Gaming company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cache Creek Casino Resort company nor Vivo Gaming company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cache Creek Casino Resort company nor Vivo Gaming company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Cache Creek Casino Resort company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Vivo Gaming company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Vivo Gaming company nor Cache Creek Casino Resort company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Vivo Gaming nor Cache Creek Casino Resort holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Vivo Gaming company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cache Creek Casino Resort company.

Cache Creek Casino Resort company employs more people globally than Vivo Gaming company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither Vivo Gaming nor Cache Creek Casino Resort holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Vivo Gaming nor Cache Creek Casino Resort holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Vivo Gaming nor Cache Creek Casino Resort holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Vivo Gaming nor Cache Creek Casino Resort holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Vivo Gaming nor Cache Creek Casino Resort holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Vivo Gaming nor Cache Creek Casino Resort 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