Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Konecta FoundationKonecta Foundation
VS
British CouncilBritish Council
Konecta Foundation

Konecta Foundation

Calle de Albacete, 5, Madrid, 28027, ES

Last Update: 26/02/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

Konecta created Konecta Foundation in 2005, channeling its strengths and resources to support global social action and inclusion with long-lasting positive impacts.

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
British Council

British Council

1 Redman Place, Stratford, London, England, GB, SW1A 2BN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
783/1000Fair

We support peace and prosperity by building connections, understanding and trust between people in the UK and countries worldwide. We uniquely combine the UK’s deep expertise in arts and culture, education and the English language, our global presence and relationships...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:24,041
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Konecta Foundation

Konecta Foundation

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
British Council

British Council

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Konecta Foundation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for British Council in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Konecta Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Konecta Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - British Council (X = Date, Y = Severity)

British Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Konecta Foundation

Konecta Foundation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
British Council

British Council

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BRI1275222

FAQ

Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Konecta Foundation company and British Council company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Konecta Foundation and British Council, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Konecta Foundation and British Council, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Konecta Foundation or British Council ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Konecta Foundation or British Council ?
Between Konecta Foundation and British Council, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Konecta Foundation and British Council, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9