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
KFCKFC
Yum! Brands

Yum! Brands

1441 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, KY, US, 40213

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.yum.com
647/1000Poor

Yum! Brands, Inc., based in Louisville, Kentucky, and its subsidiaries franchise or operate a system of over 62,000 restaurants in more than 155 countries and territories under the Company’s concepts – KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Habit Burger & Grill. The Company's KF...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:7,700
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
KFC

KFC

KFC Global Headquarters , Dallas, TX, US, 75024

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://global.kfc.com/
700/1000Moderate

We’re KFC. The iconic, brand making world-famous finger lickin’ good fried chicken since 1952. Our unrivaled people and culture are the true heart and soul of our brand. It’s where our people promise comes to life every day. Where our employees can be their best selves,...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:90,869
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

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
KFC

KFC

-
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 53.05% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

KFC has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - KFC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KFC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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
KFC

KFC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
(株)1784161532
🔒 Incident : Breach
NORKFCFOHTACHYA1769001351
🔒 Incident : Breach
FOHKFCNORHYAOMN1769001235

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19917
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in code-projects Online Food Order System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file delete_food_items1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument checkbox can lead to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-74767
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in its handling of DAA (Direct Access Archive) files. When extracting the internal ISO image from a DAA archive, compressed chunks were decompressed using zlib.decompress() without enforcing a limit on the resulting uncompressed data. An attacker able to submit a crafted DAA file containing highly compressed data could cause Pandora to decompress a relatively small input into a very large amount of data in memory. Because the decompressed chunks are accumulated to construct the internal ISO image, this could result in excessive memory consumption and potentially CPU exhaustion, causing the extraction worker to become unresponsive, terminate, or affect the availability of the Pandora service. The patch introduces bounded decompression using decompressobj().decompress() with max_extracted_filesize, verifies the cumulative size of decompressed chunks, and raises a dedicated ZipBomb exception when the configured limit is exceeded. Pandora then aborts extraction and reports the file as too large.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-74764
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a path traversal vulnerability in its TAR archive extraction functionality. When processing a submitted TAR archive, the extractor passed archive member names directly to Python's tarfile.TarFile.extract() without applying an extraction filter. An attacker able to submit a specially crafted TAR archive containing malicious member paths, such as paths using ../ sequences or absolute paths, could cause extracted files to be written outside the intended extraction directory. This may allow the attacker to overwrite files accessible to the Pandora worker process and could potentially result in application compromise, arbitrary code execution, or denial of service depending on the files targeted and the privileges of the Pandora process. The vulnerability is corrected by using Python's filter='data' extraction filter, which rejects or sanitizes dangerous TAR members, including paths that escape the destination directory and unsafe link targets. The weakness corresponds to MITRE's general path traversal category, which includes archive extraction cases where attacker-controlled filenames cause files to be written outside the intended directory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-73055
SUMMARY

Shescape before 2.1.15 (and 3.0.0 before 3.0.2) fails to properly escape tilde (~) characters in assignment contexts on Unix systems where the shell is explicitly configured to "sh" or true and /bin/sh points to BusyBox. Using the escape and escapeAll APIs with untrusted input in an assignment prefixed to a command, an attacker can inject a tilde payload to disclose the user's home directory location and, depending on usage, alter the location on which a command operates.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-73054
SUMMARY

SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the WebSocket endpoint caused by differential parsing of query parameters between authentication exemption and session quarantine checks. Unauthenticated attackers can craft a malicious WebSocket URI with duplicated query parameters to bypass access auth code validation and receive the live kernel event stream including document identifiers, titles, and operation logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9