Comparison Overview

British Cinematographer

VS

Washington University Law Review

British Cinematographer

13 Saint Paul's Square, Birmingham, England, GB, B3 1RB
Last Update: 2025-11-22

British Cinematographer is Europe's no.1 magazine covering the art and craft of international cinematography. British Cinematographer Magazine was created to celebrate the work of cinematographers – those creative artists who collaborate with directors and play the pivotal role of bringing their visions, and their scripts, to life as moving images. Since 2004, British Cinematographer Magazine has developed and evolved into as an essential read for cinematographers and all those associated with the art of cinematography. We continue to strive to get inside the hearts and minds of these talented, image-making artists, and to enquire “why” they make their creative choices before we discover “how” they put their ideas into action. Our bi-monthly publication magazine has expanded from its British-focused origins to also encompass the talents of the greatest cinematographers worldwide – whether they are working on small-budget independents or the largest Hollywood blockbusters, shooting on celluloid or digital. More often than not, and to our great delight, British cinematographers continue to make a fair share of the best moving pictures you will ever see. As production is a collaborative, team effort we also include the other talented people, plus dedicated service companies and manufacturers, who are engaged in the ever-evolving image-making pipeline – from camera into post production and beyond.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Washington University Law Review

1 Brookings Dr, St Louis, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

The Washington University Law Review is a student-run academic journal that seeks to publish legally related scholarly articles. The Law Review seeks to foster dialogue on interesting legal issues both within the law school and in the broader legal community. The Law Review was founded in 1915. Originally inaugurated as the St. Louis Law Review, the journal was retitled to the Washington University Law Quarterly in 1936, and further renamed to the Washington University Law Review in 2006. The Washington University Law Review Online was founded in 2017 to supplement the Law Review’s print edition. It features shorter-form pieces analyzing cutting-edge legal issues. Law Review editors select, edit, and publish notes, articles, and comments on various subjects within legal scholarship. Each piece undergoes a rigorous editing process wherein Law Review editors suggest global changes to substance and form, check text for accuracy and clarity, ensure that propositions have adequate support, and correct citations. The Law Review publishes six issues per year. Twitter: @WashULRev

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 72
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/britishcinematographer.jpeg
British Cinematographer
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/washington-university-law-review.jpeg
Washington University Law Review
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 Cinematographer
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Washington University Law Review
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 British Cinematographer in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Washington University Law Review in 2025.

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

British Cinematographer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Washington University Law Review (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington University Law Review cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/britishcinematographer.jpeg
British Cinematographer
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-university-law-review.jpeg
Washington University Law Review
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Washington University Law Review company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to British Cinematographer company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Washington University Law Review company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to British Cinematographer company.

In the current year, Washington University Law Review company and British Cinematographer company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Washington University Law Review company nor British Cinematographer company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Washington University Law Review company nor British Cinematographer company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Washington University Law Review company nor British Cinematographer company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither British Cinematographer company nor Washington University Law Review company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither British Cinematographer nor Washington University Law Review holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither British Cinematographer company nor Washington University Law Review company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Washington University Law Review company employs more people globally than British Cinematographer company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither British Cinematographer nor Washington University Law Review holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither British Cinematographer nor Washington University Law Review holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither British Cinematographer nor Washington University Law Review holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither British Cinematographer nor Washington University Law Review holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither British Cinematographer nor Washington University Law Review holds HIPAA certification.

Neither British Cinematographer nor Washington University Law Review 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.