Comparison Overview

Amberley Publishing

VS

Guilford Press

Amberley Publishing

None
Last Update: 2025-11-21

Amberley Publishing is the UK's most innovative publisher of history, specialist interest and local history books. Based in the Cotswolds, Amberley provides a fresh approach to local and specialist history publishing, with a 2014 publishing programme of over 500 new titles including 150 in the full-colour Through Time series plus new titles in our Classic Guide to, Bradshaw's Guides, History Tour, and some fantastic Tudor, English and World History titles. All titles available from www.amberleybooks.com www.amazon.co.uk/amberleypublishing

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 41
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Guilford Press

370 Seventh Avenue, New York, 10001-1020, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

A proudly independent press, Guilford produces science-based books, journals, and digital content that support individual and societal well-being. We partner with world-renowned clinicians, educators, and researchers to distill their expertise into needed resources for readers around the world. Over decades, we have championed life-changing mental health treatments like CBT, DBT, ACT, and EMDR, as well as transformative perspectives in literacy, research methods, and psychological science, and pioneering journals like AIDS Education and Prevention. Guilford is full of people passionate about the titles we publish--many of whom have been working at the company for decades. Our publishing program is grounded in our strong ethical compass and our commitment to excellence. Based in New York City, we are an equal opportunity employer committed to diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 92
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/amberley-publishing.jpeg
Amberley Publishing
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/guilford-publications.jpeg
Guilford Press
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
Amberley Publishing
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Guilford Press
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Book and Periodical Publishing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amberley Publishing in 2025.

Incidents vs Book and Periodical Publishing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Guilford Press in 2025.

Incident History — Amberley Publishing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amberley Publishing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Guilford Press (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guilford Press cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amberley-publishing.jpeg
Amberley Publishing
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/guilford-publications.jpeg
Guilford Press
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Amberley Publishing company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Guilford Press company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Guilford Press company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Amberley Publishing company.

In the current year, Guilford Press company and Amberley Publishing company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Guilford Press company nor Amberley Publishing company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Guilford Press company nor Amberley Publishing company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Guilford Press company nor Amberley Publishing company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Amberley Publishing company nor Guilford Press company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Amberley Publishing nor Guilford Press holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Amberley Publishing company nor Guilford Press company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Guilford Press company employs more people globally than Amberley Publishing company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Amberley Publishing nor Guilford Press holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Amberley Publishing nor Guilford Press holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Amberley Publishing nor Guilford Press holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Amberley Publishing nor Guilford Press holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Amberley Publishing nor Guilford Press holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Amberley Publishing nor Guilford Press holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.