Comparison Overview

CLUEB

VS

Good Fruit Grower

CLUEB

Via Marsala 31, Bologna, 40126, IT
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Clueb is an academic press strictly connected to the educational and research activities of the University of Bologna in Italy. It has been publishing books for scholars, students, and general readers since 1959. The catalogue counts more than 3000 titles and spans basically all over the subjects. Clueb publishes international authors coming from many italians universities. Clueb Distribution Services provides scholarly and professional publishers with quality services that enable global dissemination of their publications. These services include distribution, warehousing, credit and collection, marketing, sales representation, digital short-run printing, and digital repository services.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 5
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Good Fruit Grower

105 S. 18th Street, Suite 217, Yakima, WA, 98901-2177, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Good Fruit Grower is the essential resource for the tree fruit and grape growing industry. Get the top-rated print publication delivered 17 times a year. Good Fruit Grower magazine was established in 1946, and is eagerly read by orchardists and vineyardists worldwide. It covers the growing, packing, handling, marketing, and promotion of tree fruits (apples, pears, cherries, apricots, peaches, nectarines, and plums), as well as juice and wine grape production.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 19
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/clueb.jpeg
CLUEB
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/good-fruit-grower.jpeg
Good Fruit Grower
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
CLUEB
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Good Fruit Grower
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Book and Periodical Publishing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CLUEB in 2025.

Incidents vs Book and Periodical Publishing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Good Fruit Grower in 2025.

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

CLUEB cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Good Fruit Grower (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Good Fruit Grower cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/clueb.jpeg
CLUEB
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/good-fruit-grower.jpeg
Good Fruit Grower
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both CLUEB company and Good Fruit Grower company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Good Fruit Grower company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to CLUEB company.

In the current year, Good Fruit Grower company and CLUEB company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Good Fruit Grower company nor CLUEB company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Good Fruit Grower company nor CLUEB company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Good Fruit Grower company nor CLUEB company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither CLUEB company nor Good Fruit Grower company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CLUEB nor Good Fruit Grower holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither CLUEB company nor Good Fruit Grower company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Good Fruit Grower company employs more people globally than CLUEB company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither CLUEB nor Good Fruit Grower holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CLUEB nor Good Fruit Grower holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CLUEB nor Good Fruit Grower holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CLUEB nor Good Fruit Grower holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CLUEB nor Good Fruit Grower holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CLUEB nor Good Fruit Grower holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.