Comparison Overview

Surface Magazine

VS

Fayard

Surface Magazine

601 West 26th Street, New York, New York, 10001, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

For nearly 30 years, the global design industry has looked to Surface as the trusted resource that sits at the intersection of creative disciplines. Our mission is to cultivate an inclusive community rooted in collaboration and creative exchange, and set the agenda for what the design world will be talking about tomorrow. Through incisive reporting and an emphasis on breaking news and trends, Surface brings clarity and authority to the industry’s most pressing issues, resulting in essential information that readers can't get anywhere else. Surface is dedicated to a deeper form of storytelling, taking our readers into the studios, processes, and minds of today’s foremost practitioners—underscoring design's power to change the world. With our global network of contributors, Surface produces heavy-hitting content across numerous verticals, including our industry-leading Design Dispatch newsletter, custom content division Surface Studios, flagship conversation series Design Dialogues, and our members-only platform for leading brands The List.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 27
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Fayard

13, Rue du Montparnasse, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75006
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Arthème Fayard fils, à la fin du XIXe siècle, met la littérature à la portée de tous en tirant les volumes en grandes quantités pour les proposer à des prix modiques. Fayard devient ainsi une des maisons d’édition les plus prestigieuses en France. La littérature française et la littérature étrangère, les sciences humaines, l’histoire, la musicologie et les grands documents de société occupent par tradition une place de choix chez Fayard. Un siècle et demi après sa création, la maison a diversifié ses activités. Le catalogue s’est enrichi du fonds de plusieurs marques : Mazarine, Pauvert, 1001 nuits et la collection de poche Pluriel. Année de création : 1857

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 123
Subsidiaries: 25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/surfacemag.jpeg
Surface Magazine
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/fayard.jpeg
Fayard
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
Surface Magazine
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Fayard
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 Surface Magazine in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Fayard in 2025.

Incident History — Surface Magazine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Surface Magazine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Fayard cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/surfacemag.jpeg
Surface Magazine
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fayard.jpeg
Fayard
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Fayard company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Surface Magazine company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Fayard company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Surface Magazine company.

In the current year, Fayard company and Surface Magazine company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Fayard company nor Surface Magazine company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Fayard company nor Surface Magazine company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Fayard company nor Surface Magazine company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Surface Magazine company nor Fayard company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Surface Magazine nor Fayard holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Fayard company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Surface Magazine company.

Fayard company employs more people globally than Surface Magazine company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Surface Magazine nor Fayard holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Surface Magazine nor Fayard holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Surface Magazine nor Fayard holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Surface Magazine nor Fayard holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Surface Magazine nor Fayard holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Surface Magazine nor Fayard 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.