Comparison Overview

National Geographic

VS

Recharge

National Geographic

1145 17th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20036-4688, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.nationalgeographic.com

Since its inception more than 135 years ago, the core purpose of National Geographic has been to further the knowledge and awareness of our world. We are the world’s leading multimedia destination for the best stories in science, exploration and adventure. And our unrivaled sense of purpose and mission is best evidenced by the fact that nearly 30% of our profits go to funding real scientists, explorers, and conservationists. Official LinkedIn of National Geographic

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 8,465
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Recharge

125 Wood Street, London, undefined, EC2V 7AN, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rechargenews.com

RECHARGE is the world’s leading provider of business intelligence for the renewable-energy industries, combining award-winning international coverage of breaking news, in-depth features and analysis that, through a digital online platform and bimonthly magazine, deliver depth and dimension on the stories that matter most to the wind and solar sectors. Founded in 2009 by Norway's NHST Media Group, Recharge has offices in the UK, Norway, Germany, Japan, Brazil and the US. Website: www.rechargenews.com

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
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/national-geographic.jpeg
National Geographic
—
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/recharge-newspaper.jpeg
Recharge
—
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
National Geographic
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Recharge
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for National Geographic in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Recharge in 2025.

Incident History — National Geographic (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Geographic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Recharge cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/national-geographic.jpeg
National Geographic
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/recharge-newspaper.jpeg
Recharge
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

National Geographic company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Recharge company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Recharge company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to National Geographic company.

In the current year, Recharge company and National Geographic company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Recharge company nor National Geographic company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Recharge company nor National Geographic company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Recharge company nor National Geographic company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither National Geographic company nor Recharge company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither National Geographic nor Recharge holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

National Geographic company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Recharge company.

National Geographic company employs more people globally than Recharge company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither National Geographic nor Recharge holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither National Geographic nor Recharge holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither National Geographic nor Recharge holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither National Geographic nor Recharge holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither National Geographic nor Recharge holds HIPAA certification.

Neither National Geographic nor Recharge 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.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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).

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References
Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References