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 RobinRed Robin
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
Red Robin

Red Robin

6312 S. Fiddler's Green Circle, Suite 200 North, Greenwood Village, CO, US, 80111

Last Update: 19/07/2026

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

Since opening in 1969 in Seattle, Washington, Red Robin has welcomed Guests to our casual dining restaurants in the U.S. and Canada, connecting people around craveable food and fun in a relaxed, playful atmosphere. Our people are the foundation of our success. We aim t...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:14,345
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 Robin

Red Robin

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Red Robin 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 Robin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Robin 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 Robin

Red Robin

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71983
SUMMARY

MSI Radix AXE6600 router firmware version v781521 contains a command injection vulnerability in the wps.cgi interface that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by injecting malicious input through the pin2g, pin5g, or pin6g parameters. Attackers can exploit these unsanitized parameters to execute arbitrary commands on the affected device and obtain root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71502
SUMMARY

CTI-Transmute contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability caused by insufficient neutralization of Vue template expression delimiters in server-rendered user-controlled data. An unauthenticated attacker can create a public conversion whose name or description contains a malicious Vue expression using the application's configured [[ ... ]] delimiters. User profile names may provide an additional injection vector. Although Jinja HTML escaping is applied, the resulting value is subsequently included in a DOM region compiled by Vue. Vue interprets the attacker-controlled value as a template expression rather than ordinary text. By accessing the JavaScript Function constructor from within the expression, an attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the security context of the CTI-Transmute origin. The application's nonce-based Content Security Policy does not prevent exploitation because the Vue runtime compiler requires the unsafe-eval policy exception. The malicious payload is stored by the application and executed whenever another user opens an affected page, such as the public conversion detail page. The victim may be a normal user or an administrator. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to: * Access data available to the victim through the application. * Extract API keys, tokens, or other sensitive information exposed to the page. * Perform authenticated actions using the victim's session. * Modify conversions or other application data. * Escalate the impact by targeting an administrator. A demonstrated payload can use [].constructor.constructor(...) to obtain the JavaScript Function constructor and execute arbitrary code. The regression tests also show that a short first-stage payload could retrieve an uncapped conversion description and evaluate a larger second-stage payload. The patch addresses the vulnerability by registering a global Jinja finalize hook that inserts a zero-width Unicode word joiner inside every Vue delimiter found in server-rendered values. This prevents Vue from recognizing the values as template expressions while preserving their visible representation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-71958
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the quicksetup.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write overly long strings to the test4, ssid2, and username fields and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71957
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write an overly long string to the netAcc.addlist[].name field and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71956
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a command injection vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can inject arbitrary malicious commands into the netDig.ping.dst field, resulting in command execution with root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9