Comparison Overview

Change.org

VS

Lazada

Change.org

San Francisco, CA, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

Change.org is the world’s largest tech platform for people-powered, social change. More than half a billion people across more than 196 countries use our technology-driven petition and campaign tools to speak up on issues they’re passionate about. Approximately 70,000 petitions are created and supported on our platform every month, with 1.7 million new people joining our global network of users every week. People on Change.org have powered tens of thousands of campaign victories worldwide, and more are winning every week. Every day, our users collaborate to organize on local, national and global issues; hold corporations to account; and demand action from decision makers at the highest levels of government and business. Our platform is free to use, open to all, and completely independent because it’s funded by the people who use it. Our independence makes us a trusted resource for decision makers, who turn to the platform to hear from and respond to the communities they represent. The nonprofit Change.org Foundation oversees both the Change.org Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), a wholly owned corporate subsidiary focused on technology, innovation and growth; and the Change.org charitable programs focused on empowering the most marginalized people and communities globally. This hybrid structure of two mutually supporting organizations enables us to combine the ambition and growth trajectory of a tech company with the mission-focused stewardship of a nonprofit. As an organization, Change.org is committed to providing the tools, resources and support needed to empower anyone, anywhere to create the change they want to see. We love serving our incredible users, and we love our staff too. We show it with competitive salaries, unlimited vacation, 18 weeks of parental leave, and a high impact, low-ego team that can’t wait to learn from you and teach you what they know.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 319
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Lazada

51 Bras Basah Road, Singapore, Singapore, SG, 189554
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

About Lazada Group Founded in 2012, Lazada Group is the leading eCommerce platform in Southeast Asia. We are accelerating progress in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam through commerce and technology. With the largest logistics and payments networks in the region, Lazada is a part of our consumers’ daily lives in the region and we aim to serve 300 million shoppers by 2030. Since 2016, Lazada is the Southeast Asia flagship platform of the Alibaba Group powered by its cutting-edge technology infrastructure.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 21,530
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/change-org.jpeg
Change.org
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/lazada.jpeg
Lazada
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
Change.org
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lazada
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Change.org in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lazada in 2026.

Incident History — Change.org (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Change.org cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Lazada cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/change-org.jpeg
Change.org
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lazada.jpeg
Lazada
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Lazada company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Change.org company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Lazada company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Change.org company.

In the current year, Lazada company and Change.org company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lazada company nor Change.org company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Lazada company nor Change.org company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Lazada company nor Change.org company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Change.org company nor Lazada company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Change.org nor Lazada holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Change.org company nor Lazada company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Lazada company employs more people globally than Change.org company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Change.org nor Lazada holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Change.org nor Lazada holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Change.org nor Lazada holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Change.org nor Lazada holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Change.org nor Lazada holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Change.org nor Lazada holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

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