Comparison Overview

Social Progress Imperative

VS

Adjacency Partners

Social Progress Imperative

2101 L Street NW, Washington, 20037, US
Last Update: 2025-12-03
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.socialprogress.org/

The Social Progress Imperative’s mission is to use data to influence policies and investments to better serve all of humanity. Social progress is defined as the capacity of a society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow citizens and communities to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their full potential. The Social Progress Index® is built on these fundamentals, to understand the lived reality of people, to inspire action and improve lives. It has been used in more than 45 countries at a national and local level, by governments, businesses and NGOs. Partner with us to meet the pressing needs of communities and to advance social progress.

NAICS: 54172
NAICS Definition: Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities
Employees: 17
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Adjacency Partners

107 SE Washington St., Portland, Oregon, 97214, US
Last Update: 2025-12-02
Between 750 and 799
http://www.adjacencypartners.com

WE BUILD BRIDGES. We sit at the intersection of ideas, opportunities, and relationships. At Adjacency Partners it's about people, trust, collaboration, teams, experimenting with ideas, and growing our partner's business, together. When an ecosystem thrives, it means that the people have developed patterns of behavior – or culture – that streamline the flow of ideas, talent, and capital. That's tomorrow's advisory at the purest level. That's what we push ourselves to be.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 2
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/adjacencypartners.jpeg
Adjacency Partners
—
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 Progress Imperative
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Adjacency Partners
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Social Progress Imperative in 2025.

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Adjacency Partners in 2025.

Incident History — Social Progress Imperative (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Social Progress Imperative cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Adjacency Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Adjacency Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/social-progress-imperative.jpeg
Social Progress Imperative
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adjacencypartners.jpeg
Adjacency Partners
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Adjacency Partners company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Social Progress Imperative company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Adjacency Partners company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Social Progress Imperative company.

In the current year, Adjacency Partners company and Social Progress Imperative company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Adjacency Partners company nor Social Progress Imperative company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Adjacency Partners company nor Social Progress Imperative company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Adjacency Partners company nor Social Progress Imperative company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Social Progress Imperative company nor Adjacency Partners company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Social Progress Imperative nor Adjacency Partners holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Social Progress Imperative company nor Adjacency Partners company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Social Progress Imperative company employs more people globally than Adjacency Partners company, reflecting its scale as a Think Tanks.

Neither Social Progress Imperative nor Adjacency Partners holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Social Progress Imperative nor Adjacency Partners holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Social Progress Imperative nor Adjacency Partners holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Social Progress Imperative nor Adjacency Partners holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Social Progress Imperative nor Adjacency Partners holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Social Progress Imperative nor Adjacency Partners holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

Published
Date
2025-12-04
Updated
Date
2025-12-04
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

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Published
Date
2025-12-04
Updated
Date
2025-12-04
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/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

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

Published
Date
2025-12-04
Updated
Date
2025-12-04
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Published
Date
2025-12-04
Updated
Date
2025-12-04
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Published
Date
2025-12-04
Updated
Date
2025-12-04
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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