Comparison Overview

Stanford Law Review

VS

Pharmaceutical Press

Stanford Law Review

None
Last Update: 2025-11-26
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org

The Stanford Law Review is a legal publication run by Stanford Law School students since 1948, providing expert legal scholarship, analysis, and commentary. The Law Review has two principal functions: to educate and foster intellectual discourse among the student membership, and to contribute to legal scholarship by addressing important legal and social issues.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Pharmaceutical Press

66-68 East Smithfield, London E1W 1AW, undefined, SE1 7JN, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799
https://www.pharmaceuticalpress.com/

As the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s knowledge business (RPS), we invest all of our resources into creating world-class tools that promote best practice in medicines use, supporting health professionals quickly and confidently make the most informed decisions on the safe and effective use of medicines. Reflecting the organisation’s status as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s knowledge business, we make it easier for time-pressured health professionals to recognise the essential knowledge products and services most valuable to them. The four core components of Pharmaceutical Press knowledge include: MedicinesComplete providing instant access to trusted knowledge online, Pharmaceutical Journal, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s official journal, Pharmacy Knowledge, knowledge and revision for tomorrow’s pharmacists, and Research Journals, high impact research in pharmaceutical sciences, published in partnership with Oxford University Press. Referred to daily across healthcare, academic and research settings and relied on by many commercial organisations to operate their businesses, Pharmaceutical Press essential knowledge includes British National Formulary, published in partnership with BMJ, Stockley’s Drug Interactions, Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference and Pharmaceutical Journal, which since 1841 has continued to connect pharmacists and inform the profession. A not-for-profit publisher, Pharmaceutical Press essential knowledge online, via licence and in print, supports health professionals quickly and confidently make the most informed decisions to improve patient safety. National agreements with parts of the National Health Service in the UK, mean that much of the NHS has unrestricted access to essential resources through MedicinesComplete.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 27
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/stanford-law-review.jpeg
Stanford Law 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pharmaceutical-press.jpeg
Pharmaceutical Press
—
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
Stanford Law Review
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Pharmaceutical Press
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 Stanford Law Review in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Pharmaceutical Press in 2025.

Incident History — Stanford Law Review (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanford Law Review cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Pharmaceutical Press (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pharmaceutical Press cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stanford-law-review.jpeg
Stanford Law Review
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pharmaceutical-press.jpeg
Pharmaceutical Press
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Stanford Law Review company and Pharmaceutical Press company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Pharmaceutical Press company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Stanford Law Review company.

In the current year, Pharmaceutical Press company and Stanford Law Review company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Pharmaceutical Press company nor Stanford Law Review company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Pharmaceutical Press company nor Stanford Law Review company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Pharmaceutical Press company nor Stanford Law Review company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Stanford Law Review company nor Pharmaceutical Press company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Stanford Law Review nor Pharmaceutical Press holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Stanford Law Review company nor Pharmaceutical Press company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Pharmaceutical Press company employs more people globally than Stanford Law Review company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Stanford Law Review nor Pharmaceutical Press holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Stanford Law Review nor Pharmaceutical Press holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Stanford Law Review nor Pharmaceutical Press holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Stanford Law Review nor Pharmaceutical Press holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Stanford Law Review nor Pharmaceutical Press holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Stanford Law Review nor Pharmaceutical Press 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.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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).

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References
Description

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

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References