Comparison Overview

Maine Cancer Foundation

VS

Save the Children International

Maine Cancer Foundation

170 US Route 1, Suite 250, Falmouth, 04105, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749

Maine Cancer Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing the incidence and mortality of cancer in Maine. We lead a state-wide effort to foster and grow the most promising and effective cancer-fighting efforts available to the people of Maine through a combination of grant-based financial support and coalition building. 100% of the funds we raise stay in Maine.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 14
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Save the Children International

30 Orange Street, London, England, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-01

Save the Children Save the Children is the world's leading independent organisation for children. We work in around 120 countries. Our vision is to live in a world in which every child attains the right to survival, protection, development and participation. Last year Save the Children's programmes and campaigns reached more than 55 million children directly around the world, through our and our partners'​ work. We work to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives. Across all of our work, we pursue several core values: accountability, ambition, collaboration, creativity and integrity.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 17,224
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mainecancerfoundation.jpeg
Maine Cancer Foundation
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/save-the-children-international.jpeg
Save the Children International
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
Maine Cancer Foundation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Save the Children International
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Maine Cancer Foundation in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Save the Children International in 2025.

Incident History — Maine Cancer Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Maine Cancer Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Save the Children International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Save the Children International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mainecancerfoundation.jpeg
Maine Cancer Foundation
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/save-the-children-international.jpeg
Save the Children International
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2023
Type:Data Leak
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Maine Cancer Foundation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Save the Children International company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Save the Children International company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Maine Cancer Foundation company.

In the current year, Save the Children International company and Maine Cancer Foundation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Save the Children International company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Maine Cancer Foundation company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Maine Cancer Foundation company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Save the Children International company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Save the Children International company nor Maine Cancer Foundation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation company nor Save the Children International company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation nor Save the Children International holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation company nor Save the Children International company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Save the Children International company employs more people globally than Maine Cancer Foundation company, reflecting its scale as a Non-profit Organizations.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation nor Save the Children International holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation nor Save the Children International holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation nor Save the Children International holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation nor Save the Children International holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation nor Save the Children International holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Maine Cancer Foundation nor Save the Children International holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

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

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/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

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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