Comparison Overview

Thurston Regional Planning Council

VS

Columbia Riverkeeper

Thurston Regional Planning Council

2411 Chandler Ct SW, Olympia, Washington, US, 98502
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Based in Thurston County, WA, since 1967, TRPC is a public agency dedicated to making our region an extraordinary place to live, work, and play. We do this by collaborating on planning projects ranging from transportation, to growth management, to environmental quality. TRPC is governed by its Council, comprised of elected officials from 23 jurisdictions and organizations from across Thurston County. The Council meets monthly to address topics related to the region's growth and sponsors a variety of community forums relating to regional planning, encouraging public participation in the decision-making process.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Columbia Riverkeeper

407 Portway Avenue, Hood River, Oregon, 97031, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Columbia Riverkeeper protects and restores the water quality of the Columbia River and all life connected to it, from the headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. Representing a diverse coalition of members and interests, Columbia Riverkeeper works to restore a Columbia River where people can safely eat the fish they catch, and where children can swim without fear of toxic exposure. The organization is a member of Waterkeeper Alliance, the world's fastest growing environmental movement, uniting more than 200 Waterkeeper organizations worldwide and focusing citizen action on issues that affect our waterways, from pollution to climate change.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 26
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/thurston-regional-planning-council.jpeg
Thurston Regional Planning Council
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/columbia-riverkeeper.jpeg
Columbia Riverkeeper
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
Thurston Regional Planning Council
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Columbia Riverkeeper
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Thurston Regional Planning Council in 2025.

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Columbia Riverkeeper in 2025.

Incident History — Thurston Regional Planning Council (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Thurston Regional Planning Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Columbia Riverkeeper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Columbia Riverkeeper cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/thurston-regional-planning-council.jpeg
Thurston Regional Planning Council
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/columbia-riverkeeper.jpeg
Columbia Riverkeeper
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Thurston Regional Planning Council company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Columbia Riverkeeper company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Columbia Riverkeeper company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Thurston Regional Planning Council company.

In the current year, Columbia Riverkeeper company and Thurston Regional Planning Council company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Columbia Riverkeeper company nor Thurston Regional Planning Council company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Columbia Riverkeeper company nor Thurston Regional Planning Council company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Columbia Riverkeeper company nor Thurston Regional Planning Council company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council company nor Columbia Riverkeeper company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council nor Columbia Riverkeeper holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Columbia Riverkeeper company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Thurston Regional Planning Council company.

Columbia Riverkeeper company employs more people globally than Thurston Regional Planning Council company, reflecting its scale as a Public Policy Offices.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council nor Columbia Riverkeeper holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council nor Columbia Riverkeeper holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council nor Columbia Riverkeeper holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council nor Columbia Riverkeeper holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council nor Columbia Riverkeeper holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Thurston Regional Planning Council nor Columbia Riverkeeper 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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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