Comparison Overview

Clayton County Library System

VS

Association of Research Libraries

Clayton County Library System

865 Battle Creek Rd, Jonesboro, GA, 30236, US
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

Clayton County Library System is a 7 branch public library system founded in Jonesboro, GA. The Clayton County Library System strives to contribute to the success of the citizens of our diverse community by offering a full range of library services that meet their informational, educational and leisure interests, fostering the love of reading in our youth and the lifelong pursuit of knowledge for all.

NAICS: 51912
NAICS Definition: Libraries and Archives
Employees: 51
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Association of Research Libraries

1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20036, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is a nonprofit organization of research libraries in Canada and the US whose vision is to create a trusted, equitable, and inclusive research and learning ecosystem and prepare library leaders to advance this work in strategic partnership with member libraries and other organizations worldwide. ARL’s mission is to empower and advocate for research libraries and archives to shape, influence, and implement institutional, national, and international policy. ARL develops the next generation of leaders and enables strategic cooperation among partner institutions to benefit scholarship and society. ARL is on the web at ARL.org.

NAICS: 519
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 29
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/clayton-county-library-system.jpeg
Clayton County Library System
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/association-of-research-libraries.jpeg
Association of Research Libraries
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
Clayton County Library System
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Association of Research Libraries
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Libraries Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Clayton County Library System in 2025.

Incidents vs Libraries Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Association of Research Libraries in 2025.

Incident History — Clayton County Library System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Clayton County Library System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Association of Research Libraries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Association of Research Libraries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/clayton-county-library-system.jpeg
Clayton County Library System
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/association-of-research-libraries.jpeg
Association of Research Libraries
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Clayton County Library System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Association of Research Libraries company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Association of Research Libraries company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Clayton County Library System company.

In the current year, Association of Research Libraries company and Clayton County Library System company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Association of Research Libraries company nor Clayton County Library System company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Association of Research Libraries company nor Clayton County Library System company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Association of Research Libraries company nor Clayton County Library System company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Clayton County Library System company nor Association of Research Libraries company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Association of Research Libraries holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Clayton County Library System company nor Association of Research Libraries company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Clayton County Library System company employs more people globally than Association of Research Libraries company, reflecting its scale as a Libraries.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Association of Research Libraries holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Association of Research Libraries holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Association of Research Libraries holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Association of Research Libraries holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Association of Research Libraries holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Association of Research Libraries holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H