Comparison Overview

Chrysler Museum of Art

VS

New Bedford Whaling Museum

Chrysler Museum of Art

One Memorial Place, Norfolk, VA, US, 23510
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1939 as the Norfolk Museum of Arts and Sciences, the Chrysler Museum of Art combines one of America's great fine arts museums, two significant historic houses and a Glass Studio, the only one of its kind on the East Coast. In addition to maintaining a distinguished permanent collection of over 30,000 objects spanning nearly 5,000 years of history, the Chrysler Museum offers a comprehensive program of changing exhibitions and education activities for visitors of all ages.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 159
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

New Bedford Whaling Museum

18 Johnny Cake Hill, New Bedford, 02740, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Anchored in the story of New Bedford’s whaling industry, the New Bedford Whaling Museum documents and shares the diverse stories of this vibrant maritime region and its people, both bygone and current. Historically, whaling was an essential economic driver for our port communities and also for a rapidly expanding and industrializing society. The wealth and economic capacity generated by whaling fueled the growth and diversity of the SouthCoast region. Founded as the Old Dartmouth Historical Society in 1903, the Museum’s rich history reveals an intimate relationship with the communities it serves. Motivated by civic pride and a desire to preserve the artifacts and narratives of the region, the museum was established by a deeply engaged group of citizens “to create and foster an interest in the history” of the area. Today, the Museum plays a critical role as champions for whale preservation and discovering our heritage. Through our partnerships and our collection, the Museum stands as an institution for learning from, teaching about and reflecting on humans’ collective impact on our waters. As a compelling destination that anchors a national park and vibrant urban seaport, we encourage exploration of our region’s cultural, artistic, historic, and scientific contributions. A keeper of the region’s collective memory, the Museum preserves a communal story of the many who settled in this port and those that keep the light shining brightly. From abolitionists to immigrants, merchants to whalers, seamstresses to fisherman, and artists to environmentalists, the New Bedford Whaling Museum boldly weaves their narratives together, inviting visitors to examine complex and sometime difficult topics that are shaped by our past, remain critical today and inform a sustainable future.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 55
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/chrysler-museum-of-art.jpeg
Chrysler Museum of Art
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-bedford-whaling-museum.jpeg
New Bedford Whaling 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
Chrysler Museum of Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
New Bedford Whaling 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 Chrysler Museum of Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for New Bedford Whaling Museum in 2026.

Incident History — Chrysler Museum of Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chrysler Museum of Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — New Bedford Whaling Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

New Bedford Whaling Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chrysler-museum-of-art.jpeg
Chrysler Museum of Art
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/new-bedford-whaling-museum.jpeg
New Bedford Whaling Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Chrysler Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to New Bedford Whaling Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, New Bedford Whaling Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Chrysler Museum of Art company.

In the current year, New Bedford Whaling Museum company and Chrysler Museum of Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither New Bedford Whaling Museum company nor Chrysler Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither New Bedford Whaling Museum company nor Chrysler Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither New Bedford Whaling Museum company nor Chrysler Museum of Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art company nor New Bedford Whaling Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art nor New Bedford Whaling Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art company nor New Bedford Whaling Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Chrysler Museum of Art company employs more people globally than New Bedford Whaling Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art nor New Bedford Whaling Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art nor New Bedford Whaling Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art nor New Bedford Whaling Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art nor New Bedford Whaling Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art nor New Bedford Whaling Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Chrysler Museum of Art nor New Bedford Whaling 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