Comparison Overview

Lanternfish Press

VS

Princeton Legal Journal

Lanternfish Press

Philadelphia, 19106, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26

Lanternfish Press publishes literature of the rare and strange: fiction that crosses the boundary between literary and speculative; real or imagined tales of characters at the margins of history; essays rooted in a strong sense of place; a cabinet of curious Victorian reprints. We seek the grotesque, the alien made familiar, the “I don’t know what this is—but I love it.” Lanternfish aims to make books and publication accessible to readers and writers who fall outside the literary mainstream, whether in race, sexuality, gender, situation, or pure individual oddity. We're a home for books that defy pigeonholes—and for the readers who love them.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Princeton Legal Journal

Princeton, 08544, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28

The Princeton Legal Journal (PLJ )is Princeton’s only undergraduate law review. We are entirely student-run, and we hope to provide a meaningful, impactful, and lasting space for legal discourse on campus. The Journal consists of two sections: the Forum and the Review. The Forum consists of short-form legal content while the Review consists of full-length journal articles that dive in-depth into legal issues spanning multiple subjects. The opinions expressed by the writers do not reflect those of the Editorial and Executive Boards of the PLJ.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 33
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/lfpbooks.jpeg
Lanternfish Press
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
Lanternfish Press
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Princeton Legal Journal
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Lanternfish Press in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Princeton Legal Journal in 2025.

Incident History — Lanternfish Press (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lanternfish Press cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Princeton Legal Journal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lfpbooks.jpeg
Lanternfish Press
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/princeton-legal-journal.jpeg
Princeton Legal Journal
Incidents

FAQ

Princeton Legal Journal company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lanternfish Press company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Princeton Legal Journal company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Lanternfish Press company.

In the current year, Princeton Legal Journal company and Lanternfish Press company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Princeton Legal Journal company nor Lanternfish Press company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Princeton Legal Journal company nor Lanternfish Press company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Princeton Legal Journal company nor Lanternfish Press company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lanternfish Press company nor Princeton Legal Journal company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lanternfish Press nor Princeton Legal Journal holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Lanternfish Press company nor Princeton Legal Journal company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Princeton Legal Journal company employs more people globally than Lanternfish Press company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Lanternfish Press nor Princeton Legal Journal holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lanternfish Press nor Princeton Legal Journal holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lanternfish Press nor Princeton Legal Journal holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lanternfish Press nor Princeton Legal Journal holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lanternfish Press nor Princeton Legal Journal holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lanternfish Press nor Princeton Legal Journal 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.