Comparison Overview

Chinese Academy of Sciences

VS

CEA

Chinese Academy of Sciences

52 Sanlihe Rd., Beijing, CN, 100864
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is the lead national scientific institution in natural sciences and high technology development in China and the country's supreme scientific advisory body. It incorporates three major parts: a comprehensive research and development network consisting of 104 research institutes, a traditional merit-based national academy as represented by its Academic Divisions and a system of higher education based on its affiliated 3 universities and the support of its research institutes. CAS has served as the major national strategic research force since founding in November 1949 and has left its deep footprints in Chinese S&T and the overall development of China's national innovation system.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 14,863
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

CEA

Bâtiment Le Ponant D, Paris, 75015, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

The CEA is the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission ("Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives"​). It is a public body established in October 1945 by General de Gaulle. A leader in research, development and innovation, the CEA mission statement has two main objectives: To become the leading technological research organization in Europe and to ensure that the nuclear deterrent remains effective in the future. The CEA is active in four main areas: low-carbon energies, defense and security, information technologies and health technologies. In each of these fields, the CEA maintains a cross-disciplinary culture of engineers and researchers, building on the synergies between fundamental and technological research. The civilian programs of the CEA received 49% of their funding from the French government, and 30% from external sources (partner companies and the European Union). The CEA had a budget of 4,3 billion euros. The CEA is based in ten research centers in France, each specializing in specific fields. The laboratories are located in the Paris region, the Rhône-Alpes, the Rhône valley, the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region, Aquitaine, Central France and Burgundy. The CEA benefits from the strong regional identities of these laboratories and the partnerships forged with other research centers, local authorities and universities.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 18,601
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinese-academy-of-sciences.jpeg
Chinese Academy of Sciences
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/cea.jpeg
CEA
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
Chinese Academy of Sciences
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CEA
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2026.

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CEA in 2026.

Incident History — Chinese Academy of Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chinese Academy of Sciences cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

CEA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinese-academy-of-sciences.jpeg
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Spear-phishing, Malicious intrusions
Motivation: Cyberespionage
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cea.jpeg
CEA
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CEA company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Chinese Academy of Sciences company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Chinese Academy of Sciences company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CEA company has not reported any.

In the current year, CEA company and Chinese Academy of Sciences company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CEA company nor Chinese Academy of Sciences company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither CEA company nor Chinese Academy of Sciences company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Chinese Academy of Sciences company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while CEA company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences company nor CEA company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor CEA holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Chinese Academy of Sciences company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CEA company.

CEA company employs more people globally than Chinese Academy of Sciences company, reflecting its scale as a Research Services.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor CEA holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor CEA holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor CEA holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor CEA holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor CEA holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor CEA 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