Comparison Overview

British Council

VS

UNICEF

British Council

1 Redman Place, Stratford, None, London, England, GB, SW1A 2BN
Last Update: 2025-12-17

We support peace and prosperity by building connections, understanding and trust between people in the UK and countries worldwide. We uniquely combine the UK’s deep expertise in arts and culture, education and the English language, our global presence and relationships in over 100 countries, our unparalleled access to young people and influencers and our creative sparkle. We work directly with individuals to help them gain the skills, confidence and connections to transform their lives and shape a better world in partnership with the UK. We support them to build networks and explore creative ideas, to learn English, to get a high-quality education and to gain internationally recognised qualifications. For more information, please visit: http://www.britishcouncil.org

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 23,835
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

UNICEF

3 United Nations Plaza, New York, New York, US, 10017
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 800 and 849

UNICEF works in some of the world’s toughest places, to reach the world’s most disadvantaged children. To save their lives. To defend their rights. To help them fulfill their potential. Across 190 countries and territories, we work for every child, everywhere, every day, to build a better world for everyone. And we never give up.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 44,786
Subsidiaries: 28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/british-council.jpeg
British Council
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/unicef.jpeg
UNICEF
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
British Council
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UNICEF
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for British Council in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for UNICEF in 2025.

Incident History — British Council (X = Date, Y = Severity)

British Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

UNICEF cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/british-council.jpeg
British Council
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/unicef.jpeg
UNICEF
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Misconfigured Email
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

British Council and UNICEF have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, UNICEF company and British Council company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither UNICEF company nor British Council company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

British Council company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other UNICEF company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither UNICEF company nor British Council company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither British Council company nor UNICEF company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither British Council nor UNICEF holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UNICEF company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to British Council company.

UNICEF company employs more people globally than British Council company, reflecting its scale as a Non-profit Organizations.

Neither British Council nor UNICEF holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither British Council nor UNICEF holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither British Council nor UNICEF holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither British Council nor UNICEF holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither British Council nor UNICEF holds HIPAA certification.

Neither British Council nor UNICEF holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Versa SASE Client for Windows versions released between 7.8.7 and 7.9.4 contain a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the audit log export functionality. The client communicates user-controlled file paths to a privileged service, which performs file system operations without impersonating the requesting user. Due to improper privilege handling and a time-of-check time-of-use race condition combined with symbolic link and mount point manipulation, a local authenticated attacker can coerce the service into deleting arbitrary directories with SYSTEM privileges. This can be exploited to delete protected system folders such as C:\\Config.msi and subsequently achieve execution as NT AUTHORITY\\SYSTEM via MSI rollback techniques.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' function in all versions up to, and including, 7.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to inject cross-site scripting into the 'status' parameter of applied jobs for any user.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
Description

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 7.7 via the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to send a site-generated email with injected HTML to any user.

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

The FiboSearch – Ajax Search for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's `thegem_te_search` shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.32.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This vulnerability requires TheGem theme (premium) to be installed with Header Builder mode enabled, and the FiboSearch "Replace search bars" option enabled for TheGem integration.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

The Ultimate Member – User Profile, Registration, Login, Member Directory, Content Restriction & Membership Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 2.11.0 via the ajax_get_members function. This is due to the use of a predictable low-entropy token (5 hex characters derived from md5 of post ID) to identify member directories and insufficient authorization checks on the unauthenticated AJAX endpoint. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract sensitive data including usernames, display names, user roles (including administrator accounts), profile URLs, and user IDs by enumerating predictable directory_id values or brute-forcing the small 16^5 token space.

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