Comparison Overview

Monitum Pty Ltd

VS

Georgia Center for Opportunity

Monitum Pty Ltd

24 Finchley St, Milton, Queensland, 4064, AU
Last Update: 2025-12-01
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.landsolution.com.au/automated-monitoring-services/

Monitum has achieved global industry recognition and success through the latest technology and professional services for real time mapping of structural and geotechnical monitoring, UAV processing and laser scanning. We then bring those solutions to the table for our clients in innovative ways. This investment is ultimately about helping minimise project risk for designers, builders and asset managers with services of the future. For these applications, we deliver high frequency data using a network of connected IoT sensors and cloud-based technology. Our intelligent sensor networks provide accurate and meaningful data in near real time which is the ultimate decision making tool. The technology and processes Monitum is delivering is leading the way in high risk Infrastructure, transport and construction. By working with Monitum you are getting an experience of the future of work and receiving the latest in technology and efficiency to your project.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Georgia Center for Opportunity

5051 Peachtree Corners Circle, Norcross, GA, 30092, US
Last Update: 2025-12-02
Between 750 and 799
http://www.foropportunity.org

Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) is an independent, non-partisan policy research and solution delivery organization. GCO researches and develops solutions that address barriers to social and economic opportunity, advocates solutions to policymakers and the public, helps innovative social enterprises, delivers results on the ground, and manages collective impact initiatives at the community level.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 28
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/monitum-pty-ltd.jpeg
Monitum Pty 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/georgia-center-for-opportunity.jpeg
Georgia Center for Opportunity
—
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
Monitum Pty Ltd
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Georgia Center for Opportunity
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Monitum Pty Ltd in 2025.

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Georgia Center for Opportunity in 2025.

Incident History — Monitum Pty Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Monitum Pty Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Georgia Center for Opportunity (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Georgia Center for Opportunity cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/monitum-pty-ltd.jpeg
Monitum Pty Ltd
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/georgia-center-for-opportunity.jpeg
Georgia Center for Opportunity
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Monitum Pty Ltd company and Georgia Center for Opportunity company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Georgia Center for Opportunity company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Monitum Pty Ltd company.

In the current year, Georgia Center for Opportunity company and Monitum Pty Ltd company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Georgia Center for Opportunity company nor Monitum Pty Ltd company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Georgia Center for Opportunity company nor Monitum Pty Ltd company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Georgia Center for Opportunity company nor Monitum Pty Ltd company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd company nor Georgia Center for Opportunity company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd nor Georgia Center for Opportunity holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Georgia Center for Opportunity company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Monitum Pty Ltd company.

Georgia Center for Opportunity company employs more people globally than Monitum Pty Ltd company, reflecting its scale as a Think Tanks.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd nor Georgia Center for Opportunity holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd nor Georgia Center for Opportunity holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd nor Georgia Center for Opportunity holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd nor Georgia Center for Opportunity holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd nor Georgia Center for Opportunity holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Monitum Pty Ltd nor Georgia Center for Opportunity holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

MCP Server Kubernetes is an MCP Server that can connect to a Kubernetes cluster and manage it. Prior to 2.9.8, there is a security issue exists in the exec_in_pod tool of the mcp-server-kubernetes MCP Server. The tool accepts user-provided commands in both array and string formats. When a string format is provided, it is passed directly to shell interpretation (sh -c) without input validation, allowing shell metacharacters to be interpreted. This vulnerability can be exploited through direct command injection or indirect prompt injection attacks, where AI agents may execute commands without explicit user intent. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.9.8.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

XML external entity (XXE) injection in eyoucms v1.7.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted body of a POST request.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
References
Description

An issue was discovered in Fanvil x210 V2 2.12.20 allowing unauthenticated attackers on the local network to access administrative functions of the device (e.g. file upload, firmware update, reboot...) via a crafted authentication bypass.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
References
Description

Cal.com is open-source scheduling software. Prior to 5.9.8, A flaw in the login credentials provider allows an attacker to bypass password verification when a TOTP code is provided, potentially gaining unauthorized access to user accounts. This issue exists due to problematic conditional logic in the authentication flow. This vulnerability is fixed in 5.9.8.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/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
References
Description

Rhino is an open-source implementation of JavaScript written entirely in Java. Prior to 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1, when an application passed an attacker controlled float poing number into the toFixed() function, it might lead to high CPU consumption and a potential Denial of Service. Small numbers go through this call stack: NativeNumber.numTo > DToA.JS_dtostr > DToA.JS_dtoa > DToA.pow5mult where pow5mult attempts to raise 5 to a ridiculous power. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
References