Comparison Overview

Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.

VS

Compass

Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.

1-1-1 大手町パークビル 千代田区大手町, 東京都 100-8133, JP
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

A comprehensive real estate owner and developer, known for its leading position in the Japanese market and its large holding in Marunouchi, Tokyo. Operating a spectrum of businesses in diverse fields related to real estate, including an office building business centered on the Marunouchi district in central Tokyo, a retail property business, a residential business and a hotel business. The Company's area of operations is not confined to Japan; it includes the United States and the United Kingdom and extends to such Asian countries as China and Singapore.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 501-1,000
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compass

90 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10011
Last Update: 2025-11-23

Compass is a real estate technology company with a powerful end-to-end platform that supports the entire buying and selling workflow. We deliver an incomparable experience to both agents and their clients all in service of the Compass mission: to help everyone find their place in the world. Founded in 2012 by Ori Allon and Robert Reffkin, Compass operates in 22+ regions across the United States including New York, Los Angeles and Orange County, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Washington D.C., South Florida, The Hamptons, Santa Barbara & Montecito, San Diego, Seattle & Eastside, Philadelphia, Connecticut, Westchester, Aspen, Boulder, Denver, Atlanta, Austin & Central Texas, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Nashville, and Lake Tahoe. Learn more and find your place at www.compass.com and www.compass.com/careers.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 31,934
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mitsubishi-estate-co.-ltd..jpeg
Mitsubishi Estate 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/compassinc.jpeg
Compass
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
Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Compass
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. in 2025.

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Compass in 2025.

Incident History — Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Compass (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Compass cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mitsubishi-estate-co.-ltd..jpeg
Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/compassinc.jpeg
Compass
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Compass company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Compass company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company has not reported any.

In the current year, Compass company and Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Compass company nor Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Compass company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Compass company nor Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company nor Compass company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. nor Compass holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Compass company.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. nor Compass holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. nor Compass holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. nor Compass holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. nor Compass holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. nor Compass holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. nor Compass 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