Comparison Overview

Anchorage Museum

VS

Rupert

Anchorage Museum

625 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

The Anchorage Museum shares the art, history, culture, and stories of Alaska and the North from diverse perspectives through exhibitions, public programs, and community projects focused on people, place, planet and potential. Located in Anchorage, Alaska, the museum sits on the traditional homeland of the Dena’ina Eklutna. Learn more at www.anchoragemuseum.org. SUMMER HOURS May 1 through Sept. 30 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day WINTER HOURS Oct. 1 through April 30 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday-Saturday Noon to 6 p.m. Sunday Closed Monday

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 85
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Rupert

Meskeriotoju g. 33, Vilnius, undefined, 10100, LT
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Rupert is an educational exhibition center devoted to establishing close cooperation between artists, thinkers, researchers, and other cultural actors through interdisciplinary programs and residencies. A knowledge-based platform for innovative creative production, Rupert integrates with the social and cultural framework of the city of Vilnius while simultaneously supporting a strong international focus.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 16
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/anchorage-museum.jpeg
Anchorage Museum
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/rupert.jpeg
Rupert
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
Anchorage Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rupert
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Anchorage Museum in 2026.

Incidents vs Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rupert in 2026.

Incident History — Anchorage Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Anchorage Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Rupert (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rupert cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/anchorage-museum.jpeg
Anchorage Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rupert.jpeg
Rupert
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Anchorage Museum company and Rupert company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Rupert company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Anchorage Museum company.

In the current year, Rupert company and Anchorage Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Rupert company nor Anchorage Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Rupert company nor Anchorage Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Rupert company nor Anchorage Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Anchorage Museum company nor Rupert company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Anchorage Museum nor Rupert holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Anchorage Museum company nor Rupert company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Anchorage Museum company employs more people globally than Rupert company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Anchorage Museum nor Rupert holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Anchorage Museum nor Rupert holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Anchorage Museum nor Rupert holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Anchorage Museum nor Rupert holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Anchorage Museum nor Rupert holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Anchorage Museum nor Rupert holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N