Comparison Overview

Atlantic Council GeoTech Center

VS

The Paul Douglas Institute

Atlantic Council GeoTech Center

1030 15th St NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20005, US
Last Update: 2025-12-11

Championing positive paths forward that nations, economies, and societies can pursue to ensure new technologies and data empower people, prosperity, and peace. #GoodTechChoices

NAICS: 54172
NAICS Definition: Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities
Employees: 15
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

The Paul Douglas Institute

1116 E 59th St, None, Chicago, Illinois, US, 60637
Last Update: 2025-12-17

The Paul Douglas Institute is a nonpartisan student-run public policy think tank. Founded and based at the University of Chicago, we empower students to independently influence public policy. We produce evidence-driven social science research that is rigorous, practical, and innovative. To ensure our research is impactful and relevant, we often work with nonprofits, government offices, and elected officials. ​ Our founders named the organization after Senator Paul H. Douglas, a University of Chicago economist and dedicated public servant. Inspired by his life and work, we enable students to make an impact on the legislative process by applying their education to real-world questions.

NAICS: 54172
NAICS Definition: Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities
Employees: 23
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/atlantic-council-geotech-center.jpeg
Atlantic Council GeoTech Center
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/paul-douglas-institute.jpeg
The Paul Douglas Institute
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
Atlantic Council GeoTech Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Paul Douglas Institute
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Atlantic Council GeoTech Center in 2025.

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Paul Douglas Institute in 2025.

Incident History — Atlantic Council GeoTech Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Atlantic Council GeoTech Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Paul Douglas Institute (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Paul Douglas Institute cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/atlantic-council-geotech-center.jpeg
Atlantic Council GeoTech Center
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Zero-click attacks
Motivation: Surveillance, Data-stealing
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/paul-douglas-institute.jpeg
The Paul Douglas Institute
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Paul Douglas Institute company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas The Paul Douglas Institute company has not reported any.

In the current year, The Paul Douglas Institute company and Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Paul Douglas Institute company nor Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Paul Douglas Institute company nor Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while The Paul Douglas Institute company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company nor The Paul Douglas Institute company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center nor The Paul Douglas Institute holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company nor The Paul Douglas Institute company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Paul Douglas Institute company employs more people globally than Atlantic Council GeoTech Center company, reflecting its scale as a Think Tanks.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center nor The Paul Douglas Institute holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center nor The Paul Douglas Institute holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center nor The Paul Douglas Institute holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center nor The Paul Douglas Institute holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center nor The Paul Douglas Institute holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Atlantic Council GeoTech Center nor The Paul Douglas Institute holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

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

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L