Comparison Overview

Scan Client Publishing

VS

Brown Political Review

Scan Client Publishing

News Building, 3 London Bridge Street, London, undefined, SE1 9SG, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-26

Scan Client Publishing Trading since 2008, the company has experienced rapid growth and is currently on a continued path of expansion. The venture began with the launch of Scan Magazine which was rapidly followed by the launch of consumer shows at Earls Court and Olympia. Today the company operates a portfolio of magazines, events, market research and lead generation business. Our philosophy is simply to expand constantly and enhance our current business portfolio by developing existing brands and launching dynamic new ventures.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 17
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Brown Political Review

8 Fones Alley, Providence, 02912, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21

Brown Political Review is the nation's leading undergraduate journal of public policy and political theory. Founded in 2012, the magazine brings a rigorous, fact-based approach to analyzing domestic and international politics. Brown Political Review is supported by the Political Theory Project, an interdisciplinary program at Brown University that supports faculty associates, postdoctoral associates, and undergraduate groups in an effort to promote vibrant and rigorous discourse in academics and politics.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 148
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/scan-magazine.jpeg
Scan Client Publishing
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/brown-political-review.jpeg
Brown Political 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
Scan Client Publishing
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Brown Political 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 Scan Client Publishing in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Brown Political Review in 2025.

Incident History — Scan Client Publishing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Scan Client Publishing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Brown Political Review (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brown Political Review cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/scan-magazine.jpeg
Scan Client Publishing
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brown-political-review.jpeg
Brown Political Review
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Brown Political Review company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Scan Client Publishing company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Brown Political Review company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Scan Client Publishing company.

In the current year, Brown Political Review company and Scan Client Publishing company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Brown Political Review company nor Scan Client Publishing company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Brown Political Review company nor Scan Client Publishing company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Brown Political Review company nor Scan Client Publishing company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Scan Client Publishing company nor Brown Political Review company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Scan Client Publishing nor Brown Political Review holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Scan Client Publishing company nor Brown Political Review company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Brown Political Review company employs more people globally than Scan Client Publishing company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Scan Client Publishing nor Brown Political Review holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Scan Client Publishing nor Brown Political Review holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Scan Client Publishing nor Brown Political Review holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Scan Client Publishing nor Brown Political Review holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Scan Client Publishing nor Brown Political Review holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Scan Client Publishing nor Brown Political 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.

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
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).

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
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

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
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.

Description

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