Comparison Overview

A Call to Men

VS

Electronic Frontiers Australia

A Call to Men

250 Merrick Rd, 813, Rockville Centre, New York, US, 11570
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 700 and 749

We are a worldwide leader in training and educating men and boys to embrace and promote a healthy, respectful manhood. Since 2002, we’ve trained more than a million boys and men at countless corporations, organizations, universities, and communities around the world, including the National Football League, National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, the U.S. Military, the U.S. Department of Justice, the United Nations, and many more.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 44
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Electronic Frontiers Australia

GPO Box 1235, Canberra, 2601, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA) is a non-profit national organisation representing Internet users concerned with on-line freedoms and rights. EFA was established in January 1994 and incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act (S.A.) in May 1994. EFA is independent of government and commerce and is funded by membership subscriptions and donations from individuals and organisations with an altruistic interest in promoting online civil liberties. Our major objectives are to protect and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based communications systems such as the Internet, to advocate the amendment of laws and regulations in Australia and elsewhere (both current and proposed) which restrict free speech and to educate the community at large about the social, political, and civil liberties issues involved in the use of computer based communications systems.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 7
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/acalltomen.jpeg
A Call to Men
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/electronic-frontiers-australia.jpeg
Electronic Frontiers Australia
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
A Call to Men
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Electronic Frontiers Australia
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A Call to Men in 2025.

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Electronic Frontiers Australia in 2025.

Incident History — A Call to Men (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A Call to Men cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Electronic Frontiers Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Electronic Frontiers Australia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/acalltomen.jpeg
A Call to Men
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/electronic-frontiers-australia.jpeg
Electronic Frontiers Australia
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

A Call to Men company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Electronic Frontiers Australia company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Electronic Frontiers Australia company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to A Call to Men company.

In the current year, Electronic Frontiers Australia company and A Call to Men company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Electronic Frontiers Australia company nor A Call to Men company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Electronic Frontiers Australia company nor A Call to Men company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Electronic Frontiers Australia company nor A Call to Men company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither A Call to Men company nor Electronic Frontiers Australia company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither A Call to Men nor Electronic Frontiers Australia holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither A Call to Men company nor Electronic Frontiers Australia company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

A Call to Men company employs more people globally than Electronic Frontiers Australia company, reflecting its scale as a Public Policy Offices.

Neither A Call to Men nor Electronic Frontiers Australia holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither A Call to Men nor Electronic Frontiers Australia holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither A Call to Men nor Electronic Frontiers Australia holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither A Call to Men nor Electronic Frontiers Australia holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither A Call to Men nor Electronic Frontiers Australia holds HIPAA certification.

Neither A Call to Men nor Electronic Frontiers Australia holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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: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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H