Comparison Overview

Redleaf Press

VS

Columbia Journalism Review

Redleaf Press

10 Yorkton Ct, St. Paul, MN, 55117, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.redleafpress.org

Established in 1973, Redleaf Press is a leading nonprofit publisher of exceptional curriculum, management, and business resources for early childhood professionals. Our educational and instructional publications improve the lives of children by strengthening and supporting the teachers, trainers, and families who care for them. Redleaf Press titles represent a broad range of topics designed to assist teachers in providing a stimulating, child-centered curriculum based on sound and accepted theory. Redleaf Press is a division of Think Small, a nationally recognized nonprofit organization specializing in issues related to child care. Proceeds from Redleaf Press support many of the services that are offered to teachers, directors, providers, and families through Think Small.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 23
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Columbia Journalism Review

801 Pulitzer Hall, New York, NY, 10027, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cjr.org

The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) is an American magazine for professional journalists published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961. Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics and stories behind news. Overall? We're monitoring the press, tracking the evolving media business & encouraging excellence in journalism.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 79
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/redleaf-press.jpeg
Redleaf Press
—
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/columbia-journalism-review.jpeg
Columbia Journalism Review
—
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
Redleaf Press
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Columbia Journalism Review
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 Redleaf Press in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Columbia Journalism Review in 2025.

Incident History — Redleaf Press (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Redleaf Press cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Columbia Journalism Review (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Columbia Journalism Review cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/redleaf-press.jpeg
Redleaf Press
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/columbia-journalism-review.jpeg
Columbia Journalism Review
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Columbia Journalism Review company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Redleaf Press company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Columbia Journalism Review company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Redleaf Press company.

In the current year, Columbia Journalism Review company and Redleaf Press company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Columbia Journalism Review company nor Redleaf Press company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Columbia Journalism Review company nor Redleaf Press company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Columbia Journalism Review company nor Redleaf Press company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Redleaf Press company nor Columbia Journalism Review company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Redleaf Press nor Columbia Journalism Review holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Redleaf Press company nor Columbia Journalism Review company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Columbia Journalism Review company employs more people globally than Redleaf Press company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Redleaf Press nor Columbia Journalism Review holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Redleaf Press nor Columbia Journalism Review holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Redleaf Press nor Columbia Journalism Review holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Redleaf Press nor Columbia Journalism Review holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Redleaf Press nor Columbia Journalism Review holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Redleaf Press nor Columbia Journalism Review 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