Comparison Overview

Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC)

VS

British Council

Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC)

None
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 700 and 749

We are a grassroots people-to-people solidarity movement composed of campaigns and initiatives from different parts of the world, working together to end the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

British Council

1 Redman Place, Stratford, None, London, England, GB, SW1A 2BN
Last Update: 2025-11-28

We support peace and prosperity by building connections, understanding and trust between people in the UK and countries worldwide. We uniquely combine the UK’s deep expertise in arts and culture, education and the English language, our global presence and relationships in over 100 countries, our unparalleled access to young people and influencers and our creative sparkle. We work directly with individuals to help them gain the skills, confidence and connections to transform their lives and shape a better world in partnership with the UK. We support them to build networks and explore creative ideas, to learn English, to get a high-quality education and to gain internationally recognised qualifications. For more information, please visit: http://www.britishcouncil.org

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 23,835
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/freedom-flotilla-coalition-ffc.jpeg
Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC)
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/british-council.jpeg
British Council
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
Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
British Council
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) has 40.85% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for British Council in 2025.

Incident History — Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — British Council (X = Date, Y = Severity)

British Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/freedom-flotilla-coalition-ffc.jpeg
Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC)
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Drone
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/british-council.jpeg
British Council
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party
Blog: Blog

FAQ

British Council company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) and British Council have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company has reported more cyber incidents than British Council company.

Neither British Council company nor Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

British Council company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while British Council company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company nor British Council company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) nor British Council holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

British Council company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company.

British Council company employs more people globally than Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) company, reflecting its scale as a Non-profit Organizations.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) nor British Council holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) nor British Council holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) nor British Council holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) nor British Council holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) nor British Council holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) nor British Council holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

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