Comparison Overview

Birmingham Museums Trust

VS

Historic Denver

Birmingham Museums Trust

Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery, Birmingham, B3 3DH, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-18
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.birminghammuseums.org.uk

We are Birmingham Museums Trust, the largest independent museum trust in the UK, responsible for managing the museum sites and collections owned by Birmingham City Council. With an encyclopaedic collection of over one million objects and specimens covering art, human history, science and industry, and natural science, our mission is to bring Birmingham out by shining new light on people’s stories, collections and creativity. Between April 2024 – March 2025, we welcomed over 475000 visitors to Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery, Thinktank Birmingham Science Museum, Aston Hall, Blakesley Hall, Museum of the Jewellery Quarter, Sarehole Mill, Soho House, the Museum Collection Centre and Weoley Castle. If you would like to find out more about our latest vacancies, venue hire opportunities or upcoming events, visit our website for more information and contact details. Birmingham Museums Trust is a limited company (Company No: 07737797) and a registered charity (Charity No: 1147014).

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 177
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Historic Denver

undefined, undefined, undefined, 80202, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799
http://www.historicdenver.org

Historic Denver, Inc. is one of the nation’s premier urban historic preservation organizations. Preserving Denver’s distinctive cultural and architectural heritage is our work and passion. Our responsibility as a nonprofit corporation is to be a catalyst for and advocate of ideas, programs, actions and plans which enable our community to respect and carry forward the preservation of this heritage. Our success is achieved with advocacy, technical services, educational programs, membership events, and through the direct stewardship of historic resources through our grant management program and through our flagship property, the Molly Brown House Museum.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 18
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/birminghammuseums.jpeg
Birmingham Museums Trust
—
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/historic-denver-inc..jpeg
Historic Denver
—
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
Birmingham Museums Trust
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Historic Denver
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 Birmingham Museums Trust in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historic Denver in 2026.

Incident History — Birmingham Museums Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Birmingham Museums Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Historic Denver (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Historic Denver cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/birminghammuseums.jpeg
Birmingham Museums Trust
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-denver-inc..jpeg
Historic Denver
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Birmingham Museums Trust company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Historic Denver company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Historic Denver company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Birmingham Museums Trust company.

In the current year, Historic Denver company and Birmingham Museums Trust company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historic Denver company nor Birmingham Museums Trust company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historic Denver company nor Birmingham Museums Trust company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historic Denver company nor Birmingham Museums Trust company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust company nor Historic Denver company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust nor Historic Denver holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust company nor Historic Denver company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Birmingham Museums Trust company employs more people globally than Historic Denver company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust nor Historic Denver holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust nor Historic Denver holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust nor Historic Denver holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust nor Historic Denver holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust nor Historic Denver holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Birmingham Museums Trust nor Historic Denver holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References