Comparison Overview

INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL

VS

Location Photography

INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL

127 W 83rd St, PO Box 874, New York, NY, US, 10024
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 700 and 749

The International Photographic Council (IPC) is a civil society organization formally associated with the United Nations Department of Global Communications and is committed to promoting the power of photography as a universal means of communication. Through our global community of photographers, educators, and industry experts, we strive to foster intercultural understanding and collaboration through visual storytelling.

NAICS: 54192
NAICS Definition: Photographic Services
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Location Photography

111 Hollywood Ave., East Orange, NJ, 07018, US
Last Update: 2025-12-15

Welcome to Location Photography Location Photography based in New Jersey, Location Photography was founded July of 1987 by Mr. Barry Gray. Its New Jersey location affords it the flexibility to efficiently service the Tri-State area. Mr. Gray’s vast experience, training, and education in the photography industry has enabled him to provide an array of photography services to all types of customers. Commercial, industrial, educational, portfolios, & brochures are a few of the many services available. With over twenty-five years of experience in the photography industry, he possesses the skills to also consult and teach. Location photography provides a complete range of professional photographic services to all, for all occasions and both the private and public sectors.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 5
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/international-photographic-council.jpeg
INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL
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/location-photography.jpeg
Location Photography
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
INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Location Photography
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Photography Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL in 2025.

Incidents vs Photography Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Location Photography in 2025.

Incident History — INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Location Photography (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Location Photography cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/international-photographic-council.jpeg
INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/location-photography.jpeg
Location Photography
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Location Photography company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Location Photography company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company.

In the current year, Location Photography company and INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Location Photography company nor INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Location Photography company nor INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Location Photography company nor INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company nor Location Photography company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL nor Location Photography holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company nor Location Photography company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Location Photography company employs more people globally than INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL company, reflecting its scale as a Photography.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL nor Location Photography holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL nor Location Photography holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL nor Location Photography holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL nor Location Photography holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL nor Location Photography holds HIPAA certification.

Neither INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC COUNCIL nor Location Photography 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.

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
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)

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)

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.

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
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.

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