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
Outback SteakhouseOutback Steakhouse
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
Outback Steakhouse

Outback Steakhouse

2202 N. West Shore Blvd, Tampa, 33607, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

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

Made with an Australian flair, born under the Tampa sun. Outback Steakhouse is an Australian-inspired restaurant providing high quality delicious food with Aussie hospitality since 1988. Our success is based on our belief that if we take care of Our People, the institu...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:23,814
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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
Outback Steakhouse

Outback Steakhouse

-
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 61.83% 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 Outback Steakhouse 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 - Outback Steakhouse (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Outback Steakhouse 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
Outback Steakhouse

Outback Steakhouse

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
OUT05120422

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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: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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3