Comparison Overview

Social Planning Toronto

VS

InterAction

Social Planning Toronto

2 Carlton St., Toronto, ON, M5B 1J3, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-27
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.socialplanningtoronto.org

Mission: Social Planning Toronto challenges inequity in our city through knowledge generation, debate, civic engagement, advocacy, and collaboration to spark social and policy change. Values: We are committed to equity, diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism We respect the rights, knowledge, protocols, and traditions of Indigenous peoples We are independent and non-partisan We are stronger through our work with partners We are accountable to the community We ground our work in the lived experiences and expertise of local communities We are persistent and proactive, recognizing change is often a long process We value evidence-based decision making

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 23
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

InterAction

1400 Sixteeth Street, NW, Suite 210, Washington, 20036, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 700 and 749
http://www.interaction.org

Convener. Thought Leader. United Voice. Founded in 1984, InterAction is the largest alliance of international NGOs and partners in the United States. We mobilize our Members to think and act collectively to serve the world’s poor and vulnerable, with a shared belief that we can make the world a more peaceful, just and prosperous place—together.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 209
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/interaction.jpeg
InterAction
—
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
Social Planning Toronto
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
InterAction
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Social Planning Toronto in 2025.

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for InterAction in 2025.

Incident History — Social Planning Toronto (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Social Planning Toronto cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

InterAction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/social-planning-toronto.jpeg
Social Planning Toronto
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/interaction.jpeg
InterAction
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

InterAction company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Social Planning Toronto company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, InterAction company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Social Planning Toronto company.

In the current year, InterAction company and Social Planning Toronto company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither InterAction company nor Social Planning Toronto company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither InterAction company nor Social Planning Toronto company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither InterAction company nor Social Planning Toronto company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Social Planning Toronto company nor InterAction company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Social Planning Toronto nor InterAction holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Social Planning Toronto company nor InterAction company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

InterAction company employs more people globally than Social Planning Toronto company, reflecting its scale as a Public Policy Offices.

Neither Social Planning Toronto nor InterAction holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Social Planning Toronto nor InterAction holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Social Planning Toronto nor InterAction holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Social Planning Toronto nor InterAction holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Social Planning Toronto nor InterAction holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Social Planning Toronto nor InterAction 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