Comparison Overview

Children's Museum of Oak Ridge

VS

Coastal Discovery Museum

Children's Museum of Oak Ridge

461 W Outer Dr, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, US, 37830
Last Update: 2026-01-22

CMOR provides the ultimate fun learning experience for children, families, and Manhattan Project visitors. The mission of CMOR is to provide fun and diverse educational programs and exhibits emphasizing play and hands-on learning for all ages in arts, science, history, culture, and healthy living, while collecting and preserving objects in a historic Manhattan Project Community. The Children’s Museum was started in 1973 as a Girl Scout project by Troop 69 and its leader, Joyce Maienschein. It was formally opened on March 11, 1973 in the library of the former Jefferson Junior High School. In January 1974, the Museum moved to the former Highland View Elementary School. Nine years later, the museum purchased the building and land from the city of Oak Ridge, and now operates in 54,000 square feet with indoor and outdoor exhibits, classes, camps, and events for all ages.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 28
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Coastal Discovery Museum

70 HONEY HORN DR, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, 29926, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Coastal Discovery Museum, an Smithsonian Affiliate, is known for its beautiful setting on Hilton Head Island's 70-acre Honey Horn property and for year-round programs, walks, talks, tours and events that explore Lowcountry wildlife, history, art and culture. with a mission. With a mission is to provide experiences that inspire people to care for the Lowcountry, the Museum serves more than 100,000 local area residents, educators and school groups, and tourists annually.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
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/children's-museum-of-oak-ridge.jpeg
Children's Museum of Oak Ridge
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/coastal-discovery-museum.jpeg
Coastal Discovery 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
Children's Museum of Oak Ridge
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Coastal Discovery 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 Children's Museum of Oak Ridge in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Coastal Discovery Museum in 2026.

Incident History — Children's Museum of Oak Ridge (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Children's Museum of Oak Ridge cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Coastal Discovery Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coastal Discovery Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/children's-museum-of-oak-ridge.jpeg
Children's Museum of Oak Ridge
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coastal-discovery-museum.jpeg
Coastal Discovery Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Coastal Discovery Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Coastal Discovery Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company.

In the current year, Coastal Discovery Museum company and Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Coastal Discovery Museum company nor Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Coastal Discovery Museum company nor Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Coastal Discovery Museum company nor Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company nor Coastal Discovery Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge nor Coastal Discovery Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company nor Coastal Discovery Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Children's Museum of Oak Ridge company employs more people globally than Coastal Discovery Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge nor Coastal Discovery Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge nor Coastal Discovery Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge nor Coastal Discovery Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge nor Coastal Discovery Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge nor Coastal Discovery Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Children's Museum of Oak Ridge nor Coastal Discovery Museum 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