Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Stand Together FoundationStand Together Foundation
VS
The Salvation ArmyThe Salvation Army
Stand Together Foundation

Stand Together Foundation

1320 N. Courthouse Rd, Arlington, VA, undefined, US

Last Update: 01/05/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

Stand Together Foundation is committed to breaking the cycle of poverty by supporting the creative solutions of individuals and communities around the country. Our goal is to help effective, high-performing social entrepreneurs maximize impact—to help them help more—by ...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:75
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The Salvation Army

The Salvation Army

615 Slaters, Alexandria, VA, US, 22314

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
793/1000Fair

The Salvation Army is the nation's largest direct provider of social services. Annually, we help millions overcome poverty, addiction, and spiritual and economic hardships by preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and meeting human needs in His name without discriminati...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:38,067
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Stand Together Foundation

Stand Together Foundation

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
The Salvation Army

The Salvation Army

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Stand Together Foundation in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for The Salvation Army in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Stand Together Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stand Together Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - The Salvation Army (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Salvation Army cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Stand Together Foundation

Stand Together Foundation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The Salvation Army

The Salvation Army

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Stand Together Foundation company and The Salvation Army company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Stand Together Foundation and The Salvation Army, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Stand Together Foundation and The Salvation Army, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Stand Together Foundation or The Salvation Army ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Stand Together Foundation or The Salvation Army ?
Between Stand Together Foundation and The Salvation Army, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Stand Together Foundation and The Salvation Army, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2