Comparison Overview

Carolina Tiger Rescue

VS

Michigan Science Center

Carolina Tiger Rescue

1940 Hanks Chapel Rd., Pittsboro, NC, 27312, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Carolina Tiger Rescue is a 501(c)3 nonprofit wildlife sanctuary whose mission is saving and protecting wild cats in captivity and in the wild by rescuing wildcats, by providing lifelong sanctuary, by educating the public, by conducting non-invasive research, and by advocating for action to support wildcats in sustainable native habitats, or when that is not a viable option, for the respectful, humane treatment of them in captivity.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 22
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Michigan Science Center

5020 John R Street, Detroit, MI, 48202, US
Last Update: 2026-01-06
Between 750 and 799

The Michigan Science Center (MiSci) is a Smithsonian affiliate that inspires nearly 250,000 curious minds of all ages every year through STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) discovery, innovation and interactive education in Detroit and across Michigan. As a STEM hub, MiSci focuses on developing and introducing expanded education programs, exhibits and initiatives to empower and enrich our children and community. Through our Traveling Science Program and distance learning initiative, ECHO, we are expanding beyond our Detroit-based facility, with a goal of reaching all 83 counties of Michigan. With the Toyota Engineering 4D Theater, live science demonstrations, lab activities and 220+ interactive exhibits, there are dozens of ways to customize your MiSci visit. The Michigan Science Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and does not receive funding from Detroit or the state of Michigan. For more information, please call 313.577.8400 or visit the website, Mi-Sci.org.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 58
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/carolina-tiger-rescue.jpeg
Carolina Tiger Rescue
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/michigan-science-center.jpeg
Michigan Science Center
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
Carolina Tiger Rescue
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Michigan Science Center
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 Carolina Tiger Rescue in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Michigan Science Center in 2026.

Incident History — Carolina Tiger Rescue (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carolina Tiger Rescue cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Michigan Science Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan Science Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/carolina-tiger-rescue.jpeg
Carolina Tiger Rescue
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-science-center.jpeg
Michigan Science Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Carolina Tiger Rescue company and Michigan Science Center company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Michigan Science Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Carolina Tiger Rescue company.

In the current year, Michigan Science Center company and Carolina Tiger Rescue company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Michigan Science Center company nor Carolina Tiger Rescue company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Michigan Science Center company nor Carolina Tiger Rescue company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Michigan Science Center company nor Carolina Tiger Rescue company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue company nor Michigan Science Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue nor Michigan Science Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue company nor Michigan Science Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Michigan Science Center company employs more people globally than Carolina Tiger Rescue company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue nor Michigan Science Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue nor Michigan Science Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue nor Michigan Science Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue nor Michigan Science Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue nor Michigan Science Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Carolina Tiger Rescue nor Michigan Science Center 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