Comparison Overview

Hodes & Landy

VS

Association of Washington Cities

Hodes & Landy

284 State Street, Albany, New York, 12210, US
Last Update: 2025-12-13
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.hodeslandy.com

Hodes & Landy is a full-service government affairs firm, located steps from the New York State Capitol with a proven track record of high quality ethical representation, and exceptional results. Since 1992, Hodes & Landy has employed a unique, hands-on approach to consulting and lobbying. We provide a level of personal service and quality representation that goes far beyond industry standards, believing that every client deserves a customized approach to government relations. We pride ourselves on offering solutions that come from a thorough understanding of our clients'​ positions and goals; achieving the kind of results you only get from a truly committed firm. Our advocacy expertise gives you the advantage. Follow our page for the latest updates regarding legislation and our efforts on behalf of the senior care community.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Association of Washington Cities

1076 Franklin St. SE, Olympia, 98501, US
Last Update: 2025-12-12
Between 750 and 799
http://wacities.org

The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation that represents all 281 Washington's cities and towns before the state legislature, the state executive branch and with regulatory agencies. AWC is a highly respected voice before the Legislature, Congress, government agencies and others and is a catalyst for developing a broad public understanding of the important roles of cities and towns across the state. AWC social media is not a public forum. By accessing or engaging on AWC’s social media sites, you accept and agree to be bound by these Terms. https://wacities.org/terms-of-use

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 74
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/hodes-&-landy.jpeg
Hodes & Landy
—
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/association-of-washington-cities.jpeg
Association of Washington Cities
—
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
Hodes & Landy
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Association of Washington Cities
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Relations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hodes & Landy in 2025.

Incidents vs Government Relations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Association of Washington Cities in 2025.

Incident History — Hodes & Landy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hodes & Landy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Association of Washington Cities (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Association of Washington Cities cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hodes-&-landy.jpeg
Hodes & Landy
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/association-of-washington-cities.jpeg
Association of Washington Cities
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Hodes & Landy company and Association of Washington Cities company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Association of Washington Cities company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Hodes & Landy company.

In the current year, Association of Washington Cities company and Hodes & Landy company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Association of Washington Cities company nor Hodes & Landy company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Association of Washington Cities company nor Hodes & Landy company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Association of Washington Cities company nor Hodes & Landy company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Hodes & Landy company nor Association of Washington Cities company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hodes & Landy nor Association of Washington Cities holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Hodes & Landy company nor Association of Washington Cities company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Association of Washington Cities company employs more people globally than Hodes & Landy company, reflecting its scale as a Government Relations.

Neither Hodes & Landy nor Association of Washington Cities holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hodes & Landy nor Association of Washington Cities holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hodes & Landy nor Association of Washington Cities holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hodes & Landy nor Association of Washington Cities holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hodes & Landy nor Association of Washington Cities holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hodes & Landy nor Association of Washington Cities holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
References
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
References
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
References