Comparison Overview

Technology Policy Institute

VS

Business for Scotland

Technology Policy Institute

409 12th Street SW, Washington, DC, 20024, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01

The Technology Policy Institute is a think tank that focuses on the economics of innovation, technological change, and related regulation in the United States and around the world. Our mission is to advance knowledge and inform policymakers by producing independent, rigorous research and by sponsoring educational programs and conferences on major issues affecting information technology and communications policy. Today’s digital economy may be new, but the economic principles underlying it are not. First principles still matter in both developed and emerging economies. Thus, government should intervene in these dynamic markets only when markets fail and when proposed solutions will demonstrably improve society’s well-being. New technologies can greatly improve standards of living around the globe, but policymakers must carefully consider how policies affect the development of those technologies. Our research will help inform those deliberations. The Technology Policy Institute is a 501(c)(3) research and educational foundation. Check out all our links on LinkTree! https://linktr.ee/techpolicyinstitute

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 19
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Business for Scotland

290 Bath Street, Glasgow, Scotland, G2 4JR, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-01

Business for Scotland is a campaigning business network and think tank. We are a passionate about unlocking Scotland’s potential by promoting policies that will create sustainable business and economic growth. We are dedicated supporters of Scottish independence as a means to deliver our goals, setting Scotland on a more inclusive, greener, confident, more equal and economically successful path.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/technology-policy-institute.jpeg
Technology Policy Institute
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/business-for-scotland.jpeg
Business for Scotland
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
Technology Policy Institute
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Business for Scotland
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Technology Policy Institute in 2025.

Incidents vs Think Tanks Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Business for Scotland in 2025.

Incident History — Technology Policy Institute (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Technology Policy Institute cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Business for Scotland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Business for Scotland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/technology-policy-institute.jpeg
Technology Policy Institute
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/business-for-scotland.jpeg
Business for Scotland
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Technology Policy Institute company and Business for Scotland company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Business for Scotland company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Technology Policy Institute company.

In the current year, Business for Scotland company and Technology Policy Institute company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Business for Scotland company nor Technology Policy Institute company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Business for Scotland company nor Technology Policy Institute company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Business for Scotland company nor Technology Policy Institute company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Technology Policy Institute company nor Business for Scotland company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Technology Policy Institute nor Business for Scotland holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Business for Scotland company and Technology Policy Institute company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Technology Policy Institute company employs more people globally than Business for Scotland company, reflecting its scale as a Think Tanks.

Neither Technology Policy Institute nor Business for Scotland holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Technology Policy Institute nor Business for Scotland holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Technology Policy Institute nor Business for Scotland holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Technology Policy Institute nor Business for Scotland holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Technology Policy Institute nor Business for Scotland holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Technology Policy Institute nor Business for Scotland holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

MCP Server Kubernetes is an MCP Server that can connect to a Kubernetes cluster and manage it. Prior to 2.9.8, there is a security issue exists in the exec_in_pod tool of the mcp-server-kubernetes MCP Server. The tool accepts user-provided commands in both array and string formats. When a string format is provided, it is passed directly to shell interpretation (sh -c) without input validation, allowing shell metacharacters to be interpreted. This vulnerability can be exploited through direct command injection or indirect prompt injection attacks, where AI agents may execute commands without explicit user intent. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.9.8.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

XML external entity (XXE) injection in eyoucms v1.7.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted body of a POST request.

Description

An issue was discovered in Fanvil x210 V2 2.12.20 allowing unauthenticated attackers on the local network to access administrative functions of the device (e.g. file upload, firmware update, reboot...) via a crafted authentication bypass.

Description

Cal.com is open-source scheduling software. Prior to 5.9.8, A flaw in the login credentials provider allows an attacker to bypass password verification when a TOTP code is provided, potentially gaining unauthorized access to user accounts. This issue exists due to problematic conditional logic in the authentication flow. This vulnerability is fixed in 5.9.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/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

Rhino is an open-source implementation of JavaScript written entirely in Java. Prior to 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1, when an application passed an attacker controlled float poing number into the toFixed() function, it might lead to high CPU consumption and a potential Denial of Service. Small numbers go through this call stack: NativeNumber.numTo > DToA.JS_dtostr > DToA.JS_dtoa > DToA.pow5mult where pow5mult attempts to raise 5 to a ridiculous power. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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