Comparison Overview

Clayton County Library System

VS

Timberland Regional Library District

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

Timberland Regional Library District

415 Tumwater Blvd SW, None, Olympia, Washington, US, 98501-5799
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 700 and 749

The Timberland Regional Library (TRL) serves 29 locations in five southwest Washington State counties, covering nearly 7,000 square miles. TRL plays a leading role in helping people navigate a changing world: assisting them in finding educational and professional tools, learning, ideas, inspiration and support so they can achieve their goals.

NAICS: 51912
NAICS Definition: Libraries and Archives
Employees: 168
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

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/timberland-regional-library.jpeg
Timberland Regional Library District
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
Timberland Regional Library District
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 Timberland Regional Library District 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 — Timberland Regional Library District (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Timberland Regional Library District 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/timberland-regional-library.jpeg
Timberland Regional Library District
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Account Compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Clayton County Library System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Timberland Regional Library District company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Timberland Regional Library District company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Clayton County Library System company has not reported any.

In the current year, Timberland Regional Library District company and Clayton County Library System company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Timberland Regional Library District company nor Clayton County Library System company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Timberland Regional Library District company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Clayton County Library System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Timberland Regional Library District company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Clayton County Library System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Clayton County Library System company nor Timberland Regional Library District company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Timberland Regional Library District holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Clayton County Library System company nor Timberland Regional Library District company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Timberland Regional Library District company employs more people globally than Clayton County Library System company, reflecting its scale as a Libraries.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Timberland Regional Library District holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Timberland Regional Library District holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Timberland Regional Library District holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Timberland Regional Library District holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Timberland Regional Library District holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Clayton County Library System nor Timberland Regional Library District 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