Comparison Overview
Yum! Brands

Yum! Brands
1441 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, 40213, US
Last Update: 07/10/2026
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...

Red Lobster
450 S Orange Ave, Orlando, 32801, US
Last Update: 06/09/2026
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...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Yum! Brands







Red Lobster






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 vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Red Lobster in 2026.
Incident History - Yum! Brands (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Yum! Brands cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Red Lobster (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Red Lobster cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Yum! Brands

Red Lobster
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.