Comparison Overview

Zuppler

VS

DoorDash

Zuppler

151 E 10th Ave, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428, US
Last Update: 2026-04-04
Between 750 and 799

Zuppler is your all-in-one restaurant solution for revenue growth. Seamlessly sync online and in-store ordering, manage menu updates, orders and deliveries, and boost sales with immersive menus and strategic marketing tools—all from a unified platform.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 59
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

DoorDash

San Francisco, California, US
Last Update: 2026-04-01

At DoorDash, our mission to empower local economies shapes how our team members move quickly and always learn and reiterate to support merchants, Dashers and the communities we serve. We are a technology and logistics company that started with door-to-door delivery, and we are looking for team members who can help us go from a company that is known for delivering food to a company that people turn to for any and all goods. DoorDash is growing rapidly and changing constantly, which gives our team members the opportunity to share their unique perspectives, solve new challenges, and own their careers. Our leaders seek the truth and welcome big, hairy, audacious questions. We are grounded in our company values, and we make intentional decisions that are both logical and display empathy for our range of users—from Dashers to Merchants to Customers.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 76,630
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/zuppler.jpeg
Zuppler
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/doordash.jpeg
DoorDash
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Zuppler
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DoorDash
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Zuppler in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

DoorDash has 15.25% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Zuppler (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Zuppler cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — DoorDash (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DoorDash cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/zuppler.jpeg
Zuppler
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/doordash.jpeg
DoorDash
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: OAuth tokens, API connections, Non-human identities
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party Vendor Compromise, Credential Theft, Social Engineering
Motivation: Data Theft, Potential Fraud Enablement
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Phishing (Spear Phishing/Vishing), Compromised Credentials
Motivation: Data Theft for Follow-on Attacks (e.g., Spear Phishing, Vishing), Potential Financial Gain via Stolen Data
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Zuppler company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to DoorDash company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

DoorDash company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Zuppler company has not reported any.

In the current year, DoorDash company has reported more cyber incidents than Zuppler company.

Neither DoorDash company nor Zuppler company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

DoorDash company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Zuppler company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither DoorDash company nor Zuppler company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

DoorDash company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Zuppler company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Zuppler nor DoorDash holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Zuppler company nor DoorDash company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

DoorDash company employs more people globally than Zuppler company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Zuppler nor DoorDash holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Zuppler nor DoorDash holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Zuppler nor DoorDash holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Zuppler nor DoorDash holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Zuppler nor DoorDash holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Zuppler nor DoorDash holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers assume that the history index is always available and call blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap() directly. That assumption is false by construction. HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() explicitly returns None for the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state. when a full node is syncing or otherwise running without the history index, a remote peer can send RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress and trigger an Option::unwrap() panic on the request path. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.5.95, FileTools.download_file() in praisonaiagents validates the destination path but performs no validation on the url parameter, passing it directly to httpx.stream() with follow_redirects=True. An attacker who controls the URL can reach any host accessible from the server including cloud metadata services and internal network services. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.95.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, OAuthManager.validate_token() returns True for any token not found in its internal store, which is empty by default. Any HTTP request to the MCP server with an arbitrary Bearer token is treated as authenticated, granting full access to all registered tools and agent capabilities. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, the PraisonAI Gateway server accepts WebSocket connections at /ws and serves agent topology at /info with no authentication. Any network client can connect, enumerate registered agents, and send arbitrary messages to agents and their tool sets. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.90, MCPToolIndex.search_tools() compiles a caller-supplied string directly as a Python regular expression with no validation, sanitization, or timeout. A crafted regex causes catastrophic backtracking in the re engine, blocking the Python thread for hundreds of seconds and causing a complete service outage. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.90.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H