Comparison Overview

Boca Raton Museum of Art

VS

The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum

Boca Raton Museum of Art

501 Plaza Real, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

The Boca Museum of Art envisions itself as the inclusive, dynamic, and engaging cultural and educational nexus for the community that values art for its incomparable expression, documentation, and reflection of human aspiration and achievement. As "The Official Fine Arts Museum for the City of Boca Raton."​ the Museum plays a key role in enhancing the cultural, educational, and economic vitality of Boca Raton and its surrounding communities, and has maintained the reputation of being one of South Florida's leading cultural institutions, attracting more than 200,000 visitors annually to its galleries and programs.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 93
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum

10975 SW 17th St., Miami, FL, 33199, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1977, The Art Museum at Florida International University (MMC/FIU) started as a student gallery. Since then, it has grown to achieve official recognition as a major cultural institution of the State of Florida for its unprecedented collection of Latin American and 20th century American art, its innovative exhibitions that draw on or enhance the collection, and its unparalleled service to South Florida's diverse audiences. In 2003, the Art Museum at FIU was officially renamed The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum. In 1999, The Museum received accreditation from the American Association of Museums (AAM). It has assumed a central role in the FIU community and in the cultural life of South Florida as a whole through its mission to serve the broadest audience possible and to deliver all programs and services free of charge. The Frost Art Museum is also an affiliate within the Smithsonian Affiliations program.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 35
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/boca-raton-museum-of-art.jpeg
Boca Raton Museum of Art
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/the-patricia-&-phillip-frost-art-museum.jpeg
The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art 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
Compliance Summary
Boca Raton Museum of Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum
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 Boca Raton Museum of Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum in 2026.

Incident History — Boca Raton Museum of Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boca Raton Museum of Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/boca-raton-museum-of-art.jpeg
Boca Raton Museum of Art
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-patricia-&-phillip-frost-art-museum.jpeg
The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Boca Raton Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Boca Raton Museum of Art company.

In the current year, The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company and Boca Raton Museum of Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company nor Boca Raton Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company nor Boca Raton Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company nor Boca Raton Museum of Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art company nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art company nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Boca Raton Museum of Art company employs more people globally than The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Boca Raton Museum of Art nor The Patricia & Phillip Frost Art Museum 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