Comparison Overview

Columbia River Maritime Museum

VS

Sheffield Museums

Columbia River Maritime Museum

None
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.crmm.org

The Columbia River Maritime Museum has been sharing the Columbia River’s rich maritime heritage and history since 1962. The Museum’s wide-ranging exhibits, programs, collections and distinctive architecture express the vision of Founder Rolf Klep. The Museum is Oregon’s official state maritime museum, was the first Oregon museum to be nationally accredited, and is widely regarded as among the finest maritime museums in the United States.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Sheffield Museums

Arundel Gate, Sheffield, GB, S1 2PP
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.museums-sheffield.org.uk/

Sheffield Museums Trust is the independent charity that operates six of the city’s leading museums and heritage sites: Abbeydale Industrial Hamlet, Graves Gallery, Kelham Island Museum, Millennium Gallery, Shepherd Wheel and Weston Park Museum. Established in 2021, the charity cares for the city’s collections of art, human and industrial history, and natural science, alongside the Guild of St George’s John Ruskin collection and is home to the Ken Hawley Collection Trust’s Hawley Tool Collection. We work with our communities to tell the remarkable story of Sheffield and its people, and celebrate its reputation for excellence in craft, making and innovation. Together with local, regional and national partners, we showcase home-grown creative talent and bring outstanding cultural experiences to the city.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 117
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/columbia-river-maritime-museum.jpeg
Columbia River Maritime 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sheffieldmuseums.jpeg
Sheffield Museums
—
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
Columbia River Maritime Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sheffield Museums
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 Columbia River Maritime Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Sheffield Museums in 2026.

Incident History — Columbia River Maritime Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Columbia River Maritime Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Sheffield Museums (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sheffield Museums cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/columbia-river-maritime-museum.jpeg
Columbia River Maritime Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sheffieldmuseums.jpeg
Sheffield Museums
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Sheffield Museums company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Columbia River Maritime Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Sheffield Museums company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Columbia River Maritime Museum company.

In the current year, Sheffield Museums company and Columbia River Maritime Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Sheffield Museums company nor Columbia River Maritime Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Sheffield Museums company nor Columbia River Maritime Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Sheffield Museums company nor Columbia River Maritime Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum company nor Sheffield Museums company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum nor Sheffield Museums holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum company nor Sheffield Museums company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Sheffield Museums company employs more people globally than Columbia River Maritime Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum nor Sheffield Museums holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum nor Sheffield Museums holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum nor Sheffield Museums holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum nor Sheffield Museums holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum nor Sheffield Museums holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Columbia River Maritime Museum nor Sheffield Museums 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