Comparison Overview

Washington Policy Center

VS

Tourism & Transport Forum

Washington Policy Center

PO Box 3643, Seattle, undefined, 98124, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28

Washington Policy Center is a non-profit, independent think tank in Seattle with offices in Olympia and Eastern Washington. WPC's mission is to improve lives through market solutions and to shape the public debate on the key issues facing Washington state. WPC promotes free-market solutions through research and education. Our research program is focused on eight areas of public policy: budget & taxes, environment, education, small business, health care, agriculture, worker rights and transportation. WPC is a dependable resource for legislators, the governor, other policymakers and the general public.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 35
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Tourism & Transport Forum

31 Market St, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Tourism & Transport Forum (TTF) is the national peak advocacy body for the tourism, transport and aviation sectors. It is a CEO forum representing the interests of leading Australian institutions and corporations in the private and public sectors. TTF uses its experience and networks to influence public policy outcomes and business practices and to assist the delivery of major tourism, aviation and transport-related infrastructure projects. Our members’ interests include tourism, major events, aviation, investment, hotel, property development, land and maritime transport, finance, retail, hospitality and education.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 31
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/washington-policy-center.jpeg
Washington Policy Center
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/tourism-&-transport-forum.jpeg
Tourism & Transport Forum
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
Washington Policy Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Tourism & Transport Forum
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Washington Policy Center in 2025.

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tourism & Transport Forum in 2025.

Incident History — Washington Policy Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington Policy Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Tourism & Transport Forum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tourism & Transport Forum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-policy-center.jpeg
Washington Policy Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tourism-&-transport-forum.jpeg
Tourism & Transport Forum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Washington Policy Center company and Tourism & Transport Forum company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Tourism & Transport Forum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Washington Policy Center company.

In the current year, Tourism & Transport Forum company and Washington Policy Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Tourism & Transport Forum company nor Washington Policy Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Tourism & Transport Forum company nor Washington Policy Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Tourism & Transport Forum company nor Washington Policy Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Washington Policy Center company nor Tourism & Transport Forum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Washington Policy Center nor Tourism & Transport Forum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Washington Policy Center company nor Tourism & Transport Forum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Washington Policy Center company employs more people globally than Tourism & Transport Forum company, reflecting its scale as a Public Policy Offices.

Neither Washington Policy Center nor Tourism & Transport Forum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Washington Policy Center nor Tourism & Transport Forum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Washington Policy Center nor Tourism & Transport Forum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Washington Policy Center nor Tourism & Transport Forum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Washington Policy Center nor Tourism & Transport Forum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Washington Policy Center nor Tourism & Transport Forum 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