Comparison Overview

Compass Advocacy

VS

Torres Consulting & Law Group

Compass Advocacy

48 Maryland Ave, Annapolis, Maryland, 21401, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10

Founded in 2018 by preeminent lobbyist Hannah Garagiola, Compass Advocacy is headquartered in the heart of Annapolis. In addition, we operate a government relations and law office in downtown Rockville, Maryland. We also advocate in Dover, Delaware. Our team is comprised of passionate lobbyists, consultants, creatives, attorneys, and problem-solvers ready to advocate for our clients. Compass Advocacy is comprised of three separate and distinct businesses to holistically navigate challenging client issues in the government relations, public relations, and the legal arena. Each business can work independently or synergistically to meet a client’s needs. Oftentimes, a client uses the services of all three businesses to accomplish their objectives. We work smartly, efficiently and with energy, passion, and dedication.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Torres Consulting & Law Group

2239 W. Baseline Road, Tempe, Arizona, 85283, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799

Torres Consulting and Law Group (TCLG) partners with clients – each with a unique set of goals and needs – throughout the western United States. Our dynamic team possesses more than 100 years of combined experience in government relations, grassroots outreach, public relations, and public service at the state, county and municipal levels. TCLG maximizes a variety of invaluable resources to achieve and sustain our clients’ outreach, business development, public-policy influence and communication objectives. We work with a broad group of professionals—including government regulators, organized labor leadership, elected officials, creative services professionals and attorneys—to create just the right solutions for any situation or business plan. This allows us to give our clients exactly what they need.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
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/compass-gr-partners.jpeg
Compass Advocacy
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/torres-consulting-and-law-group-llc.jpeg
Torres Consulting & Law Group
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
Compass Advocacy
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Torres Consulting & Law Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Relations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Compass Advocacy in 2025.

Incidents vs Government Relations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Torres Consulting & Law Group in 2025.

Incident History — Compass Advocacy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Compass Advocacy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Torres Consulting & Law Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Torres Consulting & Law Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/compass-gr-partners.jpeg
Compass Advocacy
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/torres-consulting-and-law-group-llc.jpeg
Torres Consulting & Law Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Torres Consulting & Law Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Compass Advocacy company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Torres Consulting & Law Group company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Compass Advocacy company.

In the current year, Torres Consulting & Law Group company and Compass Advocacy company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Torres Consulting & Law Group company nor Compass Advocacy company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Torres Consulting & Law Group company nor Compass Advocacy company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Torres Consulting & Law Group company nor Compass Advocacy company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Compass Advocacy company nor Torres Consulting & Law Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Compass Advocacy nor Torres Consulting & Law Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Compass Advocacy company nor Torres Consulting & Law Group company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Both Compass Advocacy company and Torres Consulting & Law Group company employ a similar number of people globally.

Neither Compass Advocacy nor Torres Consulting & Law Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Compass Advocacy nor Torres Consulting & Law Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Compass Advocacy nor Torres Consulting & Law Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Compass Advocacy nor Torres Consulting & Law Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Compass Advocacy nor Torres Consulting & Law Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Compass Advocacy nor Torres Consulting & Law Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

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

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N