Comparison Overview

Washington University Law Review

VS

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Washington University Law Review

1 Brookings Dr, St Louis, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://wustllawreview.org/

The Washington University Law Review is a student-run academic journal that seeks to publish legally related scholarly articles. The Law Review seeks to foster dialogue on interesting legal issues both within the law school and in the broader legal community. The Law Review was founded in 1915. Originally inaugurated as the St. Louis Law Review, the journal was retitled to the Washington University Law Quarterly in 1936, and further renamed to the Washington University Law Review in 2006. The Washington University Law Review Online was founded in 2017 to supplement the Law Review’s print edition. It features shorter-form pieces analyzing cutting-edge legal issues. Law Review editors select, edit, and publish notes, articles, and comments on various subjects within legal scholarship. Each piece undergoes a rigorous editing process wherein Law Review editors suggest global changes to substance and form, check text for accuracy and clarity, ensure that propositions have adequate support, and correct citations. The Law Review publishes six issues per year. Twitter: @WashULRev

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 72
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Fordham Urban Law Journal

152 W 62nd St, New York, New York, 10023, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799
https://news.law.fordham.edu/fulj/

The Fordham Urban Law Journal, now in its 49th year, is the most-cited specialty journal and second-oldest publication at Fordham University School of Law. Every year, the Journal publishes five books which address policy issues affecting urban areas and communities. Furthermore, the central mission of the Journal has been and continues to be giving a voice to those who have traditionally been excluded, marginalized, or otherwise overlooked by traditional legal scholarship.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 42
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-university-law-review.jpeg
Washington University Law Review
—
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/fordham-urban-law-journal.jpeg
Fordham Urban Law Journal
—
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 University Law Review
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Fordham Urban Law Journal
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 Washington University Law Review in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Fordham Urban Law Journal in 2025.

Incident History — Washington University Law Review (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington University Law Review cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Fordham Urban Law Journal (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fordham Urban Law Journal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-university-law-review.jpeg
Washington University Law Review
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fordham-urban-law-journal.jpeg
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Washington University Law Review company and Fordham Urban Law Journal company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Fordham Urban Law Journal company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Washington University Law Review company.

In the current year, Fordham Urban Law Journal company and Washington University Law Review company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Fordham Urban Law Journal company nor Washington University Law Review company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Fordham Urban Law Journal company nor Washington University Law Review company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Fordham Urban Law Journal company nor Washington University Law Review company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Washington University Law Review company nor Fordham Urban Law Journal company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Washington University Law Review nor Fordham Urban Law Journal holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Washington University Law Review company nor Fordham Urban Law Journal company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Washington University Law Review company employs more people globally than Fordham Urban Law Journal company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither Washington University Law Review nor Fordham Urban Law Journal holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Washington University Law Review nor Fordham Urban Law Journal holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Washington University Law Review nor Fordham Urban Law Journal holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Washington University Law Review nor Fordham Urban Law Journal holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Washington University Law Review nor Fordham Urban Law Journal holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Washington University Law Review nor Fordham Urban Law Journal 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.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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).

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References
Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References