Comparison Overview

International Centre for Life

VS

Kentucky Science Center

International Centre for Life

International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, NE1 4EP, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.life.org.uk

The International Centre for Life (or ‘Life’ as we’re known) was founded in 2000, a pioneering science village in the heart of Newcastle upon Tyne. We are proudly independent, entrepreneurial and quirky – and we are always interested in hearing from people with the talent, drive and skills to help us continue to make a difference. Our purpose is to inspire everyone to explore and enjoy science, and to provide a world-class science hub where life enhancing engagement, research and patient treatment can thrive. Life Science Centre, which opened in May 2000, is the science centre for the North, with the North’s biggest Planetarium, too. Our varied and exciting engagement programme serves families, schools, adults, pre-schoolers and teenagers.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 74
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Kentucky Science Center

727 West Main Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799
http://KYScienceCenter.org

Already recognized as a leader in inquiry-based learning, Kentucky Science Center is advancing a statewide science literacy campaign to encourage people of all ages to explore science in everyday life. Its flagship location on Louisville, KY’s historic Museum Row, welcomes visitors from across the globe with 3-floors of interactive exhibits and films on a 4-story screen. With daily programming for children, families, and adults, the Science Center plays an ongoing role in the region as a resource for caregivers and teachers, a gathering place for the science community, and a chosen source of entertainment for all.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 97
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/centre-for-life.jpeg
International Centre for Life
—
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/kentucky-science-center.jpeg
Kentucky 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
International Centre for Life
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Kentucky 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 International Centre for Life in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Kentucky Science Center in 2026.

Incident History — International Centre for Life (X = Date, Y = Severity)

International Centre for Life cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Kentucky 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/centre-for-life.jpeg
International Centre for Life
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kentucky-science-center.jpeg
Kentucky Science Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both International Centre for Life company and Kentucky Science Center company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Kentucky Science Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to International Centre for Life company.

In the current year, Kentucky Science Center company and International Centre for Life company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Kentucky Science Center company nor International Centre for Life company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Kentucky Science Center company nor International Centre for Life company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Kentucky Science Center company nor International Centre for Life company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither International Centre for Life company nor Kentucky Science Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither International Centre for Life nor Kentucky Science Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

International Centre for Life company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Kentucky Science Center company.

Kentucky Science Center company employs more people globally than International Centre for Life company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither International Centre for Life nor Kentucky Science Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither International Centre for Life nor Kentucky Science Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither International Centre for Life nor Kentucky Science Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither International Centre for Life nor Kentucky Science Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither International Centre for Life nor Kentucky Science Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither International Centre for Life nor Kentucky Science Center 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