Comparison Overview

Greenville County Schools

VS

Beaconhouse Group

Greenville County Schools

Greenville County Schools, 301 E. Camperdown Way, Greenville, South Carolina, SC, US, 29601
Last Update: 2025-12-17

Greenville County Schools is an exciting place to learn with high student achievement, outstanding teachers, and a wide variety of academic offerings. We have the state’s largest school choice program with over 10,000 students attending on choice. Our schools are widely recognized for excellence at the state and national levels, earning awards such as National Blue Ribbon, Palmetto’s Finest, and Red Carpet. Our schools boast numerous state academic and athletic champions.

NAICS: 92311
NAICS Definition: Administration of Education Programs
Employees: 6,589
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Beaconhouse Group

10-11 Gurumangat Road Gulberg III Lahore, Punjab 54000, PK
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

The Beaconhouse School System has risen from its modest beginnings in 1975 as Les Anges Montessori Academy to become a major force in the education world. With an ever-expanding base, already established in Malaysia, the Philippines, Pakistan, the UAE, Oman, Belgium and Thailand, Beaconhouse is one of the largest private school networks in the world.

NAICS: 923
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
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/greenville-county-schools.jpeg
Greenville County Schools
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/beaconhouse-group.jpeg
Beaconhouse 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
Greenville County Schools
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Beaconhouse Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Education Administration Programs Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Greenville County Schools in 2025.

Incidents vs Education Administration Programs Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Beaconhouse Group in 2025.

Incident History — Greenville County Schools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Greenville County Schools cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Beaconhouse Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Beaconhouse Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/greenville-county-schools.jpeg
Greenville County Schools
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2004
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beaconhouse-group.jpeg
Beaconhouse Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Beaconhouse Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Greenville County Schools company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Greenville County Schools company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Beaconhouse Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Beaconhouse Group company and Greenville County Schools company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Beaconhouse Group company nor Greenville County Schools company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Beaconhouse Group company nor Greenville County Schools company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Beaconhouse Group company nor Greenville County Schools company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Greenville County Schools company nor Beaconhouse Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Greenville County Schools nor Beaconhouse Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Greenville County Schools company nor Beaconhouse Group company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Beaconhouse Group company employs more people globally than Greenville County Schools company, reflecting its scale as a Education Administration Programs.

Neither Greenville County Schools nor Beaconhouse Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Greenville County Schools nor Beaconhouse Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Greenville County Schools nor Beaconhouse Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Greenville County Schools nor Beaconhouse Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Greenville County Schools nor Beaconhouse Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Greenville County Schools nor Beaconhouse Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L