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

Comparison Overview

Yum! BrandsYum! Brands
VS
Red LobsterRed Lobster
Yum! Brands

Yum! Brands

1441 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, 40213, US

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.yum.com
660/1000Weak

Yum! Brands, Inc., and its subsidiaries franchise or operate more than 44,000 restaurants in 151 countries and territories under its iconic brands — KFC, Taco Bell and Habit Burger & Grill. KFC and Taco Bell are global leaders in the chicken and Mexican-inspired food ca...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:7,666
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Red Lobster

Red Lobster

450 S Orange Ave, Orlando, 32801, US

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.redlobster.com
781/1000Fair

With over 30,000 employees and more than 500 restaurants in the United States and Canada, Red Lobster is the world’s largest seafood restaurant company. Our vision is to be where the world goes for seafood now and for generations. Red Lobster is an innovative, values...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:17,383
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Yum! Brands

Yum! Brands

-
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
Red Lobster

Red Lobster

-
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)

Yum! Brands has 50.98% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Red Lobster in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Yum! Brands (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yum! Brands cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Red Lobster (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Lobster cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Yum! Brands

Yum! Brands

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
YUM1771972326
🔒 Incident : Breach
YUM33429523
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
YUM407072625
Red Lobster

Red Lobster

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA