Comparison Overview

Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc.

VS

New England Ski Museum

Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc.

None
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.cheyennedepotmuseum.org

The Cheyenne Depot Museum is housed in the newly renovated Union Pacific Depot in downtown Cheyenne. The museum tells the story about the establishment of Cheyenne during the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad and the history of the construction of the Union Pacific Depot.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

New England Ski Museum

135 Tramway Dr., Franconia, 03580, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.newenglandskimuseum.org

The New England Ski Museum is a member-supported 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to the history of skiing and the 10th Mountain Division. Our mission: to collect, preserve, and share ski history—through equipment, art, and artifacts—for research, education, inspiration, and celebration. We operate two branches: in North Conway Village, NH and at Cannon Mountain in Franconia Notch State Park, NH. Both are open seven days a week with free admission. With one of the largest and most comprehensive ski and snowsport archives in the world, we welcome more than 25,000 visitors annually—at no cost. For more information or to become a member, visit skimuseum.org.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 8
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/defaultcompany.jpeg
Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc.
—
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/new-england-ski-museum.jpeg
New England Ski 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
Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
New England Ski 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 Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for New England Ski Museum in 2026.

Incident History — Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — New England Ski Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

New England Ski Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/new-england-ski-museum.jpeg
New England Ski Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to New England Ski Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, New England Ski Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company.

In the current year, New England Ski Museum company and Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither New England Ski Museum company nor Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither New England Ski Museum company nor Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither New England Ski Museum company nor Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company nor New England Ski Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. nor New England Ski Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company nor New England Ski Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

New England Ski Museum company employs more people globally than Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. nor New England Ski Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. nor New England Ski Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. nor New England Ski Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. nor New England Ski Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. nor New England Ski Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cheyenne Depot Museum, Inc. nor New England Ski Museum 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