Comparison Overview

Granta Publications

VS

Princeton Legal Journal

Granta Publications

12 Addison Avenue, London, W11 4QR, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 800 and 849

Granta Publications is the home of Granta Magazine, Granta Books and Portobello Books. The magazine was originally founded by students at the university of Cambridge in 1889. It was relaunched in 1979, followed ten years later by Granta Books. In 2005, the imprint Portobello Books was added to focus on translation and nonfiction. Granta Publications is based in London, United Kingdom.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 99
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Princeton Legal Journal

Princeton, 08544, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28

The Princeton Legal Journal (PLJ )is Princeton’s only undergraduate law review. We are entirely student-run, and we hope to provide a meaningful, impactful, and lasting space for legal discourse on campus. The Journal consists of two sections: the Forum and the Review. The Forum consists of short-form legal content while the Review consists of full-length journal articles that dive in-depth into legal issues spanning multiple subjects. The opinions expressed by the writers do not reflect those of the Editorial and Executive Boards of the PLJ.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 33
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/granta-publications.jpeg
Granta Publications
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
Granta Publications
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Princeton Legal Journal
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Granta Publications in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Princeton Legal Journal in 2025.

Incident History — Granta Publications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Granta Publications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Princeton Legal Journal (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Princeton Legal Journal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/granta-publications.jpeg
Granta Publications
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/princeton-legal-journal.jpeg
Princeton Legal Journal
Incidents

FAQ

Granta Publications company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Princeton Legal Journal company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Princeton Legal Journal company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Granta Publications company.

In the current year, Princeton Legal Journal company and Granta Publications company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Princeton Legal Journal company nor Granta Publications company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Princeton Legal Journal company nor Granta Publications company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Princeton Legal Journal company nor Granta Publications company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Granta Publications company nor Princeton Legal Journal company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Granta Publications nor Princeton Legal Journal holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Granta Publications company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Princeton Legal Journal company.

Granta Publications company employs more people globally than Princeton Legal Journal company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Granta Publications nor Princeton Legal Journal holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Granta Publications nor Princeton Legal Journal holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Granta Publications nor Princeton Legal Journal holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Granta Publications nor Princeton Legal Journal holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Granta Publications nor Princeton Legal Journal holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Granta Publications nor Princeton Legal Journal 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.