Comparison Overview

Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd.

VS

City of Amsterdam

Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd.

1-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Tokyo Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8798, JP
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

A Japanese state-owned conglomerate headquartered in Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda, Tokyo. It is mainly engaged in postal and logistics business, financial window business, banking business and life insurance business. The company offers letters and goods transportation services, stamp sales, deposits, loans, and insurance products.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

City of Amsterdam

Postbus 202, Amstel 1, Amsterdam, www.amsterdam.nl, NL, 1000 AE
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Working for Amsterdam means working for the most beautiful city in the world. Think of its rich history, the role Amsterdam plays internationally, and events such as Sail, Gay Pride and King’s Day. Of course everybody wants to visit Amsterdam, or work or live here. As you can probably imagine, working for Amsterdam is a challenge every day. How do we handle the growing bustle in the inner city? Or the high demand for new homes? Or obesity among young children? At the municipality of Amsterdam we work daily on challenging projects like these. Good for Amsterdam, good for you Each field of work, ranging from social affairs, customer and information services to environmental planning and economy, has its own challenges. You have to deal with the interests of many parties, often conflicting. Each day you will be looking for solutions that suit the needs of residents, entrepreneurs and visitors. This can make working for the city difficult sometimes, but it is what characterises the job. We work in an open, active, honest, ethical and fair manner, so that is what we would expect from you as well.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 10,662
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/defaultcompany.jpeg
Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd.
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/gemeente-amsterdam.jpeg
City of Amsterdam
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
Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
City of Amsterdam
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. in 2025.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for City of Amsterdam in 2025.

Incident History — Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — City of Amsterdam (X = Date, Y = Severity)

City of Amsterdam cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gemeente-amsterdam.jpeg
City of Amsterdam
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to City of Amsterdam company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, City of Amsterdam company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company.

In the current year, City of Amsterdam company and Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither City of Amsterdam company nor Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither City of Amsterdam company nor Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither City of Amsterdam company nor Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company nor City of Amsterdam company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. nor City of Amsterdam holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company nor City of Amsterdam company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

City of Amsterdam company employs more people globally than Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. nor City of Amsterdam holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. nor City of Amsterdam holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. nor City of Amsterdam holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. nor City of Amsterdam holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. nor City of Amsterdam holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. nor City of Amsterdam holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H