Comparison Overview

ArtMoorHouse

VS

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden

ArtMoorHouse

undefined, London, United Kingdom, EC2Y 5ET, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Norman Foster's building provides the setting for a successful synergy between Art and Business. ArtMoorHouse is a new creative space in the heart of the City. Our aim is to provide a rolling programme of high-profile Fine art and Design exhibitions and events. From internationally acclaimed and well-established artists to emerging talents, ArtMoorHouse strives to engage, inspire and provide a talking point and an ice breaker in the banking and commercial environment. Thanks to the collaboration with prestigious national and international galleries, sponsors and supporters, ArtMoorHouse aim to present itself as a hub, a meeting point of diverse synergies in order to create a network of interactions between the art world, design and business.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden

1212 Mission Canyon, Santa Barbara, Ca, 93105, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden fosters the conservation of California's native plants through our gardens, scientific research, and education programs, and serves as a role model for sustainable action. Established in 1926, the Garden is one of the nation’s oldest native plant gardens and is renowned for its naturalistic landscapes. Located in the foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains, the Garden’s 78 acres of living collections feature more than 1,200 taxa of California native plants from all regions of the state. The Garden has helped safeguard 34 highly endangered plant species, imparted the value of plant and ecological conservation to thousands of visitors, and served as a critical resource for botanists worldwide. We are accredited by the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) as a living museum, certifying we maintain the highest standards of collections management, research and educational programs.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 65
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/artmoorhouse.jpeg
ArtMoorHouse
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/santa-barbara-botanic-garden.jpeg
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
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
ArtMoorHouse
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
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 ArtMoorHouse in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Santa Barbara Botanic Garden in 2026.

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

ArtMoorHouse cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/artmoorhouse.jpeg
ArtMoorHouse
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/santa-barbara-botanic-garden.jpeg
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to ArtMoorHouse company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to ArtMoorHouse company.

In the current year, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company and ArtMoorHouse company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company nor ArtMoorHouse company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company nor ArtMoorHouse company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company nor ArtMoorHouse company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither ArtMoorHouse company nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither ArtMoorHouse nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither ArtMoorHouse company nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden company employs more people globally than ArtMoorHouse company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither ArtMoorHouse nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ArtMoorHouse nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ArtMoorHouse nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ArtMoorHouse nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ArtMoorHouse nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ArtMoorHouse nor Santa Barbara Botanic Garden 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