Comparison Overview

Chicago Cultural Alliance

VS

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

Chicago Cultural Alliance

600 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, Illinois, 60661, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

The Chicago Cultural Alliance’s mission is to connect, promote, and support centers of cultural heritage for a more inclusive Chicago. We are an active consortium of 40 cultural heritage museums, centers and historical societies who span 28 neighborhoods and 7 suburbs in the Chicago area and represent over 30 different cultures from around the world. Our vision is a city where all communities have a voice, and cross-cultural dialogue and collaboration are an integral part of Chicago's civic fabric. The Chicago Cultural Alliance is the only organization of its kind in the US, representing 40 Chicago-area cultural heritage museums, centers, and historical societies, our Core Members. Through the Alliance, Core Members are connected to a wide range of civic and arts organizations, our Partners. Our Partners and Core Members work together to increase each other’s capacities in administrative, strategic and community-driven engagement, working towards our mission of a more culturally-inclusive and equitable region. The Alliance was formally created in 2008 after beginning at The Field Museum as the Cultural Connections program in 1998, created under the leadership of our founders Dr. Alaka Wali and Dr. Rosa Cabrera. Core Values • First voice of Core Members and their communities is central to the Alliance’s operations and programs, leading to social change driven by community concerns and resources. • Heritage is an asset not only to explain history, but also to address contemporary issues and to build leadership and innovation for the future. • All programs are collaborative and cross-cultural, building greater impact than could be achieved by any one member or partner individually. • The Alliance is an active community and not a loose network or a purely professional consortium. • Engagement is not simply outreach; it is the co-development and creation of ideas, programs, and initiatives.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 8
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

1204 Minor Ave, Seattle, WA, US, 98101
Last Update: 2026-01-13
Between 750 and 799

The Washington Trust for Historic Preservation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the places that matter in Washington State and to promoting sustainable and economically viable communities through historic preservation. We are Washington’s only statewide nonprofit advocacy organization working to build a collective ethic that preserves historic places through education, collaboration, and stewardship.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 15
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/chicago-cultural-alliance.jpeg
Chicago Cultural Alliance
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/washington-trust-for-historic-preservation.jpeg
Washington Trust for Historic Preservation
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
Chicago Cultural Alliance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Washington Trust for Historic Preservation
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 Chicago Cultural Alliance in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Washington Trust for Historic Preservation in 2026.

Incident History — Chicago Cultural Alliance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chicago Cultural Alliance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Washington Trust for Historic Preservation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chicago-cultural-alliance.jpeg
Chicago Cultural Alliance
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-trust-for-historic-preservation.jpeg
Washington Trust for Historic Preservation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Chicago Cultural Alliance company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Chicago Cultural Alliance company.

In the current year, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company and Chicago Cultural Alliance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company nor Chicago Cultural Alliance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company nor Chicago Cultural Alliance company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company nor Chicago Cultural Alliance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company employs more people globally than Chicago Cultural Alliance company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Chicago Cultural Alliance nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation 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