Comparison Overview

Save the Children International

VS

Transport for London

Save the Children International

30 Orange Street, London, England, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-21
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.savethechildren.net

Save the Children Save the Children is the world's leading independent organisation for children. We work in around 120 countries. Our vision is to live in a world in which every child attains the right to survival, protection, development and participation. Last year Save the Children's programmes and campaigns reached more than 55 million children directly around the world, through our and our partners'​ work. We work to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives. Across all of our work, we pursue several core values: accountability, ambition, collaboration, creativity and integrity.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 17,224
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
View Profile

Transport for London

5 Endeavour Square, Westfield Avenue,, London , GB, E20 1JN
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 550 and 599
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/about

Every day, we help millions of people to make journeys across London: By Tube, bus, tram, car, bike – and more. People don’t associate us with journeys by river, on foot or via the air, but we help with that, too. Getting people to where they need to go has been our business for over 100 years, and it shows. We’re leaders in our field, and no other city’s transport system is quite as recognisable: Red buses, black taxis, Tube trains and roundels have become icons in their own right. Our main job is to keep the city moving, working and growing but to do that, we have to listen. Constant improvements across the network are fuelled by feedback and comments from customers, as well as work within communities, representative groups, businesses and other London transport stakeholders. But our progress also depends on technology and data. With the future at our fingertips, we’ve already used it to revolutionise travel payments (think Oyster and contactless payment cards), and improved travel information. Tech and data is essential, not just to our future, but to others’: third parties use our data to power apps and services vital to customer journeys. So what’s next? As well as continuing to deliver Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan’s strategy and commitments on transport, our programme of capital investments is still one of the largest. We launched the Elizabeth line, we’re modernising services and stations and making travel safer for all.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 18,194
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/save-the-children-international.jpeg
Save the Children International
—
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/transport-for-london.jpeg
Transport for London
—
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
Save the Children International
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Transport for London
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Save the Children International in 2025.

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

Transport for London has 181.69% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Save the Children International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Save the Children International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Transport for London (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Transport for London cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/save-the-children-international.jpeg
Save the Children International
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2023
Type:Data Leak
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/transport-for-london.jpeg
Transport for London
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Unauthorized use of computer systems (TfL), Zero-Day Exploit in Oracle E-Business Suite Servers (Oracle)
Motivation: Unclear (potentially disruption or data theft for TfL), Financial gain / extortion (Oracle)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Unknown (likely exploit of exchange vulnerabilities or credential compromise)
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Save the Children International company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Transport for London company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Transport for London company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Save the Children International company.

In the current year, Transport for London company has reported more cyber incidents than Save the Children International company.

Both Transport for London company and Save the Children International company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Neither Transport for London company nor Save the Children International company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Transport for London company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Save the Children International company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Save the Children International company nor Transport for London company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Save the Children International nor Transport for London holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Transport for London company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Save the Children International company.

Transport for London company employs more people globally than Save the Children International company, reflecting its scale as a Non-profit Organizations.

Neither Save the Children International nor Transport for London holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor Transport for London holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor Transport for London holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor Transport for London holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor Transport for London holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Save the Children International nor Transport for London 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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References