Comparison Overview

The Library Corporation

VS

Bexley Public Library

The Library Corporation

Research Park, Inwood, WV, 25428-9733, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.TLCdelivers.com

Tell us your #librarianproblems; we have #TLCsolutions. The Library Corporation (TLC) is a woman-owned, library technology company with industry-leading support & data services. We provide enterprise solutions to public libraries, school libraries & media centers, academic libraries, and special libraries worldwide. About The Library Corporation TLC has operated continuously under the same ownership since 1974 and employs over 200 people dedicated to delivering enterprise software and hardware solutions to libraries worldwide. TLC’s cumulative products are deployed in more than 1,100 organizations, representing over 5,500 locations in North America and worldwide. TLC is certified by the U.S. General Services Administration, Women’s Business Enterprise National Council, and the Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contracting Program. TLC’s Headquarters is based in Inwood, W.Va., and has additional offices in Colorado, Minnesota, and Singapore.

NAICS: 51912
NAICS Definition: Libraries and Archives
Employees: 188
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Bexley Public Library

undefined, undefined, undefined, 43209, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bexleylibrary.org

Bexley Public Library has been serving the Bexley community since 1924. The Library’s mission is to enlighten, engage, and inspire a community of lifelong learners. An extensive collection, knowledgeable and friendly staff, innovative programming for kids and adults, and a welcoming space are all part of what makes our library unique. Bexley Public Library joined the Central Library Consortium (CLC) in 2014 to expand its services and offer patrons access to over 4.5 million resources. Learn more at www.bexleylibrary.org.

NAICS: 519
NAICS Definition:
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/the-library-corporation.jpeg
The Library Corporation
—
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/bexley-public-library.jpeg
Bexley Public Library
—
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
The Library Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Bexley Public Library
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Libraries Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Library Corporation in 2025.

Incidents vs Libraries Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bexley Public Library in 2025.

Incident History — The Library Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Library Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Bexley Public Library (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bexley Public Library cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-library-corporation.jpeg
The Library Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bexley-public-library.jpeg
Bexley Public Library
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both The Library Corporation company and Bexley Public Library company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Bexley Public Library company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Library Corporation company.

In the current year, Bexley Public Library company and The Library Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Bexley Public Library company nor The Library Corporation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Bexley Public Library company nor The Library Corporation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Bexley Public Library company nor The Library Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Library Corporation company nor Bexley Public Library company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Library Corporation nor Bexley Public Library holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Library Corporation company nor Bexley Public Library company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Library Corporation company employs more people globally than Bexley Public Library company, reflecting its scale as a Libraries.

Neither The Library Corporation nor Bexley Public Library holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Library Corporation nor Bexley Public Library holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Library Corporation nor Bexley Public Library holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Library Corporation nor Bexley Public Library holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Library Corporation nor Bexley Public Library holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Library Corporation nor Bexley Public Library holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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