Comparison Overview

Headnote

VS

Center for Children's Advocacy

Headnote

450 Townsend Street, undefined, CA, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 700 and 749

Headnote is revolutionizing how the legal community gets paid from solo attorneys to large law firms. It’s as easy as PayPal or Venmo but made specifically for the legal industry and always compliant with IOLTA guidelines and the ABA’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Firms using Headnote get paid fast, collect more revenue, and have higher client satisfaction rates than ever before. Headnote was recently designated as a Great Place to Work and is a part of Paradigm, which offers a suite of legal software solutions that help lawyers manage, automate and grow their firms.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Center for Children's Advocacy

65 Elizabeth Stree, Hartford, CT, 06105, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Fighting for the legal rights of Connecticut's most vulnerable children. The Center for Children's Advocacy is a nonprofit law firm that provides legal representation and advocacy for the poorest, most at-risk children and youth. The work is difficult and it is critical: abuse and neglect, racial justice, educational inequities, immigration, youth homelessness, juvenile justice, access to medical and mental health care. We have offices in Connecticut's largest and poorest cities, and our mobile office goes directly to youth in communities that need us the most. The Center provides legal representation and advocacy that gives at-risk children the opportunity every child should have: a chance to lead a healthy and productive life.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 35
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/headnote.jpeg
Headnote
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/center-for-children's-advocacy.jpeg
Center for Children's 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
Compliance Summary
Headnote
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Center for Children's Advocacy
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Headnote in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Center for Children's Advocacy in 2025.

Incident History — Headnote (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Headnote cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Center for Children's Advocacy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Center for Children's Advocacy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/headnote.jpeg
Headnote
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/center-for-children's-advocacy.jpeg
Center for Children's Advocacy
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Center for Children's Advocacy company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Headnote company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Center for Children's Advocacy company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Headnote company.

In the current year, Center for Children's Advocacy company and Headnote company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Center for Children's Advocacy company nor Headnote company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Center for Children's Advocacy company nor Headnote company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Center for Children's Advocacy company nor Headnote company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Headnote company nor Center for Children's Advocacy company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Headnote nor Center for Children's Advocacy holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Headnote company nor Center for Children's Advocacy company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Center for Children's Advocacy company employs more people globally than Headnote company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Headnote nor Center for Children's Advocacy holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Headnote nor Center for Children's Advocacy holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Headnote nor Center for Children's Advocacy holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Headnote nor Center for Children's Advocacy holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Headnote nor Center for Children's Advocacy holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Headnote nor Center for Children's Advocacy 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