Comparison Overview

Julie Soefer Photography

VS

Ritchie Coatsworth Photography

Julie Soefer Photography

None
Last Update: 2025-12-13
Between 750 and 799

Julie Soefer is a graduate of New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. She was mentored by pioneering photographer, Arnold Newman, who developed the environmental portrait. Julie served as the still photographer for the feature film Super Size Me, snapping the iconic movie-poster image of director Morgan Spurlock with a mouthful of french fries. Her work has been featured on the cover of Houston Modern Luxury magazine and she has been published by numerous national publications including The Financial Times, Texas Monthly and The Wall Street Journal. In addition to shooting ad campaigns for the likes of the Four Seasons, Texas Children's Hospital and Elaine Turner, Julie wasrecently was recently chosen as a finalist in prestigious Hearst Corporation's 8x10 Photography Biennial and was the winner of the 20th Annual Texas Photographic Society's Member's Only Show, juried by Clint Willour.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 2
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Ritchie Coatsworth Photography

80 Hope Street, Crook, County Durham, DL159HT, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-17

We are a family friendly studio in Hope Street, Crook. We specialise in beautiful portraits of families, babies and children as well as wedding storytelling photography packages that capture all of your special moments for you to cherish for many years to come. We also undertake offsite corporate work working with various North East companies to help make their brand more engaging.

NAICS: 54192
NAICS Definition: Photographic Services
Employees: 1
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/julie-soefer-photography.jpeg
Julie Soefer 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ritchiecoatsworthphotography.jpeg
Ritchie Coatsworth 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
Julie Soefer Photography
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ritchie Coatsworth Photography
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Photography Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Julie Soefer Photography in 2025.

Incidents vs Photography Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ritchie Coatsworth Photography in 2025.

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

Julie Soefer Photography cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Ritchie Coatsworth Photography cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/julie-soefer-photography.jpeg
Julie Soefer Photography
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ritchiecoatsworthphotography.jpeg
Ritchie Coatsworth Photography
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Julie Soefer Photography company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Julie Soefer Photography company.

In the current year, Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company and Julie Soefer Photography company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company nor Julie Soefer Photography company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company nor Julie Soefer Photography company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company nor Julie Soefer Photography company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography company nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography company nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Julie Soefer Photography company employs more people globally than Ritchie Coatsworth Photography company, reflecting its scale as a Photography.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography nor Ritchie Coatsworth Photography holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Julie Soefer Photography nor Ritchie Coatsworth 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