Comparison Overview

World Scientific Publishing Company

VS

Good Housekeeping

World Scientific Publishing Company

None
Last Update: 2025-11-21
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.wspc.com

OUR MISSION To develop the highest quality knowledge-based products and services for the academic, scientific, professional, research and student communities worldwide. World Scientific Publishing Company was established in 1981 with only five employees in a tiny office. Today, the company employs more than 200 staff at its headquarters in Singapore, and has offices in New Jersey, London, Hong Kong, Taipei, Chennai, Beijing and Shanghai. In less than three decades, it has established itself as one of the leading scientific publishers in the world, and the largest international scientific publisher in the Asia-Pacific region. Annually, World Scientific publishes about 500 titles a year and 120 journals in various fields. Many of its books are recommended texts adopted by renowned institutions such as Harvard University, California Institute of Technology and Princeton University.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 36
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Good Housekeeping

300 W 57th St, New York, NY, 10019, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com

Celebrating over 135 years, Good Housekeeping is a leading lifestyle media brand inspiring a monthly audience of 40+ million readers to discover genius innovations, delicious ideas, style-savvy trends, compelling news and best-in-class products for their homes, families and themselves. The Good Housekeeping Institute's state-of-the-art labs combined with Good Housekeeping's seasoned editorial talent is unparalleled. Staffed by top engineers, scientists and technology experts, the GH Institute tests and evaluates thousands of products each year for the magazine, website and for the Good Housekeeping Seal and the Green Good Housekeeping Seal and an extensive lineup of coveted awards, which are among the most recognized and trusted consumer icons in the world today. Good Housekeeping, which also has international editions, is published by Hearst Magazines, a unit of Hearst, one of the nation's largest diversified media, information and services companies.

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition: Publishing Industries (except Internet)
Employees: 101
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
World Scientific Publishing Company
—
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/good-housekeeping.jpeg
Good Housekeeping
—
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
World Scientific Publishing Company
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Good Housekeeping
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 World Scientific Publishing Company in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Good Housekeeping in 2025.

Incident History — World Scientific Publishing Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

World Scientific Publishing Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Good Housekeeping (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Good Housekeeping cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
World Scientific Publishing Company
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/good-housekeeping.jpeg
Good Housekeeping
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

World Scientific Publishing Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Good Housekeeping company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Good Housekeeping company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to World Scientific Publishing Company company.

In the current year, Good Housekeeping company and World Scientific Publishing Company company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Good Housekeeping company nor World Scientific Publishing Company company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Good Housekeeping company nor World Scientific Publishing Company company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Good Housekeeping company nor World Scientific Publishing Company company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company company nor Good Housekeeping company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company nor Good Housekeeping holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Good Housekeeping company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to World Scientific Publishing Company company.

Good Housekeeping company employs more people globally than World Scientific Publishing Company company, reflecting its scale as a Book and Periodical Publishing.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company nor Good Housekeeping holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company nor Good Housekeeping holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company nor Good Housekeeping holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company nor Good Housekeeping holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company nor Good Housekeeping holds HIPAA certification.

Neither World Scientific Publishing Company nor Good Housekeeping 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