Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

32BJ SEIU32BJ SEIU
VS
International Rescue CommitteeInternational Rescue Committee
32BJ SEIU

32BJ SEIU

25 W 18th St, New York, NY, US, 10011

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.seiu32bj.org
730/1000Moderate

32BJ SEIU is the largest property service workers union in the country, representing more than 185,000 office cleaners, security officers, doormen, porters, maintenance workers, bus drivers and aides, window cleaners, school cleaners and food service workers in twelve s...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:688
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
International Rescue Committee

International Rescue Committee

122 E 42st , New York, NY, US, 10168

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.rescue.org/
805/1000Good

The International Rescue Committee responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and help people to survive, recover, and gain control of their future. Founded in 1933 at the request of Albert Einstein, the IRC offers lifesaving care and life-changing assistance t...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:13,311
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
32BJ SEIU

32BJ SEIU

-
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
International Rescue Committee

International Rescue Committee

-
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 Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 32BJ SEIU in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for International Rescue Committee in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 32BJ SEIU (X = Date, Y = Severity)

32BJ SEIU cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - International Rescue Committee (X = Date, Y = Severity)

International Rescue Committee 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...
32BJ SEIU

32BJ SEIU

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
32B948072725
International Rescue Committee

International Rescue Committee

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between 32BJ SEIU company and International Rescue Committee company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between 32BJ SEIU and International Rescue Committee, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between 32BJ SEIU and International Rescue Committee, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - 32BJ SEIU or International Rescue Committee ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 32BJ SEIU or International Rescue Committee ?
Between 32BJ SEIU and International Rescue Committee, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between 32BJ SEIU and International Rescue Committee, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8