Comparison Overview

Contentra Inc.

VS

Columbia Journalism Review

Contentra Inc.

D-103 Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, undefined, 110020, IN
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Contentra Inc. delivers full life-cycle content management services to leading publishers, content aggregators, Fortune 500 companies and government organizations such as national libraries — all from its ISO-certified facilities. Contentra has offices across the United States, Europe, and India. Trusted for more than 14 years and by more than 100 delighted clients. If you are thinking content, think Contentra!

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 329
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Columbia Journalism Review

801 Pulitzer Hall, New York, NY, 10027, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) is an American magazine for professional journalists published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961. Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics and stories behind news. Overall? We're monitoring the press, tracking the evolving media business & encouraging excellence in journalism.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 79
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/contentra-technologies.jpeg
Contentra Inc.
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/columbia-journalism-review.jpeg
Columbia Journalism Review
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
Contentra Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Columbia Journalism Review
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 Contentra Inc. in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Columbia Journalism Review in 2025.

Incident History — Contentra Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Contentra Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Columbia Journalism Review (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Columbia Journalism Review cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/contentra-technologies.jpeg
Contentra Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/columbia-journalism-review.jpeg
Columbia Journalism Review
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Contentra Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Columbia Journalism Review company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Columbia Journalism Review company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Contentra Inc. company.

In the current year, Columbia Journalism Review company and Contentra Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Columbia Journalism Review company nor Contentra Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Columbia Journalism Review company nor Contentra Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Columbia Journalism Review company nor Contentra Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Contentra Inc. company nor Columbia Journalism Review company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Contentra Inc. nor Columbia Journalism Review holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Contentra Inc. company nor Columbia Journalism Review company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Contentra Inc. company employs more people globally than Columbia Journalism Review company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Contentra Inc. nor Columbia Journalism Review holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Contentra Inc. nor Columbia Journalism Review holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Contentra Inc. nor Columbia Journalism Review holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Contentra Inc. nor Columbia Journalism Review holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Contentra Inc. nor Columbia Journalism Review holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Contentra Inc. nor Columbia Journalism Review 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.