Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Charles Koch FoundationCharles Koch Foundation
VS
AIESECAIESEC
Charles Koch Foundation

Charles Koch Foundation

1320 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, Virginia, 22201, US

Last Update: 05/03/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

The Charles Koch Foundation was established in 1980 by Charles G. Koch in order to advance social progress and well-being through the study and advancement of economic freedom. Through the Foundation’s history, it has supported the study of economic freedom through gran...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:36
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AIESEC

AIESEC

5605 Avenue de Gaspé, Montreal, CA

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://aiesec.org/partners
783/1000Fair

AIESEC develops leadership among youth aged 18 to 30 and contributes to strengthening the global employability market by providing an end-to-end international talent recruitment solution for Enterprises, NGOs, and Start-ups. AIESEC is the world's largest youth-run orga...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:13,006
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Charles Koch Foundation

Charles Koch Foundation

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
AIESEC

AIESEC

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Charles Koch Foundation in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for AIESEC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Charles Koch Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Charles Koch Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - AIESEC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AIESEC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Charles Koch Foundation

Charles Koch Foundation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AIESEC

AIESEC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AIE163012223

FAQ

Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation company and AIESEC company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation and AIESEC, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation and AIESEC, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Charles Koch Foundation or AIESEC ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Charles Koch Foundation or AIESEC ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation and AIESEC, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Charles Koch Foundation and AIESEC, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2