Comparison Overview

Museum of Science

VS

Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo

Museum of Science

1 Science Park, Boston, MA, 02114, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

One of the world's largest science centers and New England’s most attended cultural institution, the Museum of Science, Boston introduces 1.5 million visitors a year to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) via dynamic programs and hundreds of interactive exhibits. The Museum of Science carries out its mission as a leader in transforming the nation’s relationship with science and technology through world-class exhibits, industry-leading curriculum, and innovative programming. As science and technology shapes our lives, it means we: • Promote active citizenship • Inspire lifelong appreciation of the importance of science • Make STEM accessible to young people of all backgrounds and abilities These principles manifest every day in all we do within the Museum walls as well as around the world, as a steward of our community, as informal and formal educators, and as advocates for scientific advancement. Since its founding in 1830, the Museum of Science has been at the cutting edge of scientific study and education. Today it has become an iconic symbol of the city’s long cultural and technological history – and future. Within its ¾ mile long building, the Museum of Science includes: • 10,000 square foot Hall of Human Life, allowing visitors to explore how they engage with their own bodies • Thomson Theater of Electricity, home to the world’s largest Van de Graaf generator which makes indoor lightning • Charles Hayden Planetarium, the most technologically advanced theater in New England • Mugar Omni Theater, New England’s only dome IMAX screen • Award-winning pre-K – 8 engineering curriculum, EiE, reaching 1.3 million students each year As a leader in the world’s museum community, we use our role as educator and communicator to bring diverse communities together to learn, share, and consider our collective role in the future of our planet.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 581
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo

5640 IH-35 S., New Braunfels, Texas, 78132, US
Last Update: 2026-01-03
Between 750 and 799

It is Animal World & Snake Farm’s Zoo’s mission to protect biodiversity, promote animal welfare, encourage sustainable living practices and empower communities to care about the world in which we inhabit. Our vision is to become a leader in the use of education and conservation to empower our communities— both local and global— to help create a diverse, thriving and sustainable natural world.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 21
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/boston-museum-of-science.jpeg
Museum of Science
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/animal-world-snake-farm-zoo.jpeg
Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo
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
Museum of Science
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo
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 Museum of Science in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo in 2026.

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

Museum of Science cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/boston-museum-of-science.jpeg
Museum of Science
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/animal-world-snake-farm-zoo.jpeg
Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Museum of Science company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Museum of Science company.

In the current year, Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company and Museum of Science company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company nor Museum of Science company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company nor Museum of Science company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company nor Museum of Science company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Museum of Science company nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Museum of Science nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Museum of Science company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company.

Museum of Science company employs more people globally than Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Museum of Science nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Museum of Science nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Museum of Science nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Museum of Science nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Museum of Science nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Museum of Science nor Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo 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