Comparison Overview

Insurance Journal

VS

Seager

Insurance Journal

3570 Camino del Rio N, San Diego, California, 92108, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Established in 1923 as a small Southern California publication, Insurance Journal magazine and website has grown to become the most widely read and well-respected insurance trade publications in the country, with a bi-weekly circulation of more than 47,000 readers nationwide. InsuranceJournal.com is the highest-trafficked P/C insurance new website in the world (confirmed by Similarweb.com Aug 2021). We are a part of Wells Media Group, Inc., a 100% employee-owned company.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 83
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Seager

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Seager Publishing, based in Bath, UK, is an aviation media company which specialises in live, digital and print aviation products. The Seager team began publishing FLYER magazine, the UK’s brightest, best and most-read General Aviation magazine, in 1994 – and since then, the company has grown into a media company at the forefront of its industry, delivering a diverse and exciting range of products to aviation audiences around the world.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15
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/insurancejournal.jpeg
Insurance Journal
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/seager-publishing.jpeg
Seager
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
Insurance Journal
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Seager
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Insurance Journal in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Seager in 2025.

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

Insurance Journal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Seager cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/insurancejournal.jpeg
Insurance Journal
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/seager-publishing.jpeg
Seager
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Insurance Journal company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Seager company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Seager company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Insurance Journal company.

In the current year, Seager company and Insurance Journal company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Seager company nor Insurance Journal company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Seager company nor Insurance Journal company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Seager company nor Insurance Journal company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Insurance Journal company nor Seager company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Insurance Journal nor Seager holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Insurance Journal company nor Seager company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Insurance Journal company employs more people globally than Seager company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Insurance Journal nor Seager holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Insurance Journal nor Seager holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Insurance Journal nor Seager holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Insurance Journal nor Seager holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Insurance Journal nor Seager holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Insurance Journal nor Seager 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.