Comparison Overview

Powers Young & Company

VS

Asking Matters

Powers Young & Company

428 E. Thunderbird Road, #738, Phoenix, Arizona, 85022, US
Last Update: 2025-12-21
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.powersyoung.com

Powers Young & Company was formed in May 2000 with a dedication to the advancement of Arizona and its nonprofit organizations. Our outstanding team of professionals inspires confidence, helping you achieve your goals. A respected leader with a solid reputation for successfully advancing major community projects, the Powers Young & Company team delivers exceptional results in the areas of capital development planning, management and consulting services, strategic and business planning, annual fund planning and execution, board development, marketing, and interim management. We believe that ethical standards and principles are the foundation for maintaining public trust. We enthusiastically subscribe to the code of ethical principles and standards of professional practice adopted by the Association of Fundraising Professionals. Since our founding we have helped our Arizona clients raise over $320 million dollars to expand their facilities, improve their programs and strengthen their governance and management practices.

NAICS: 561
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 5
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Asking Matters

PO Box 1295, Maplewood, NJ, 07040, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.askingmatters.com

Asking Matters provides staff and board members with on-line and in-person training on how to ask for charitable gifts. The company uses three proprietary systems, first and foremost being the Asking Styles. A 2-minute on-line assessment establishes one's "asking style"​ and askers are taught how to ask given the strengths and challenges of their Style. Company President Brian Saber and his team of experts train through webinars, electronic courses, in-person trainings, and coaching.

NAICS: 561
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 5
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/powers-young-&-company.jpeg
Powers Young & Company
—
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/asking-matters.jpeg
Asking Matters
—
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
Powers Young & Company
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Asking Matters
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Fundraising Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Powers Young & Company in 2025.

Incidents vs Fundraising Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Asking Matters in 2025.

Incident History — Powers Young & Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Powers Young & Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Asking Matters (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Asking Matters cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/powers-young-&-company.jpeg
Powers Young & Company
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/asking-matters.jpeg
Asking Matters
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Powers Young & Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Asking Matters company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Asking Matters company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Powers Young & Company company.

In the current year, Asking Matters company and Powers Young & Company company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Asking Matters company nor Powers Young & Company company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Asking Matters company nor Powers Young & Company company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Asking Matters company nor Powers Young & Company company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Powers Young & Company company nor Asking Matters company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Powers Young & Company nor Asking Matters holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Powers Young & Company company nor Asking Matters company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Both Powers Young & Company company and Asking Matters company employ a similar number of people globally.

Neither Powers Young & Company nor Asking Matters holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Powers Young & Company nor Asking Matters holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Powers Young & Company nor Asking Matters holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Powers Young & Company nor Asking Matters holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Powers Young & Company nor Asking Matters holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Powers Young & Company nor Asking Matters holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Versa SASE Client for Windows versions released between 7.8.7 and 7.9.4 contain a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the audit log export functionality. The client communicates user-controlled file paths to a privileged service, which performs file system operations without impersonating the requesting user. Due to improper privilege handling and a time-of-check time-of-use race condition combined with symbolic link and mount point manipulation, a local authenticated attacker can coerce the service into deleting arbitrary directories with SYSTEM privileges. This can be exploited to delete protected system folders such as C:\\Config.msi and subsequently achieve execution as NT AUTHORITY\\SYSTEM via MSI rollback techniques.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
References
Description

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' function in all versions up to, and including, 7.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to inject cross-site scripting into the 'status' parameter of applied jobs for any user.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
References
Description

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 7.7 via the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to send a site-generated email with injected HTML to any user.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
References
Description

The FiboSearch – Ajax Search for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's `thegem_te_search` shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.32.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This vulnerability requires TheGem theme (premium) to be installed with Header Builder mode enabled, and the FiboSearch "Replace search bars" option enabled for TheGem integration.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

The Ultimate Member – User Profile, Registration, Login, Member Directory, Content Restriction & Membership Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 2.11.0 via the ajax_get_members function. This is due to the use of a predictable low-entropy token (5 hex characters derived from md5 of post ID) to identify member directories and insufficient authorization checks on the unauthenticated AJAX endpoint. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract sensitive data including usernames, display names, user roles (including administrator accounts), profile URLs, and user IDs by enumerating predictable directory_id values or brute-forcing the small 16^5 token space.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
References