Comparison Overview

Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans

VS

Ulrich Museum of Art

Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans

900 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cacno.org

The Contemporary Arts Center (CAC) is committed to artists, the presentation of multidisciplinary work, and the value and power of the art of our time. Formed in 1976 by a passionate group of visual and performing artists when the movement to tear down the walls between visual and performing arts was active nationwide, the CAC expresses its mission by organizing world class curated exhibitions, performances, and public programs that educate and enlarge audiences for the arts while encouraging collaboration among diverse stakeholders composed of artists, institutions, communities, and supporters throughout the world.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 29
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Ulrich Museum of Art

Wichita State University, Wichita, 67260-0046, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ulrich.wichita.edu

As the region’s source for modern and contemporary art, the Ulrich Museum of Art, located on the campus of Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, provides a unique opportunity to view our world through the eyes of the leading artists of today. The museum seeks to expand human experience through encounters with the art of our time by developing and presenting an endless stream of groundbreaking exhibitions, prominent guest artists, art parties, fun family events, and compelling performances that explore today’s visual culture.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 31
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/contemporary-arts-center_2.jpeg
Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans
—
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/ulrich-museum-of-art.jpeg
Ulrich 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
Compliance Summary
Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ulrich Museum of Art
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 Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Ulrich Museum of Art in 2026.

Incident History — Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/contemporary-arts-center_2.jpeg
Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans
Incidents

No Incident

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

No Incident

FAQ

Ulrich Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Ulrich Museum of Art company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company.

In the current year, Ulrich Museum of Art company and Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ulrich Museum of Art company nor Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Ulrich Museum of Art company nor Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Ulrich Museum of Art company nor Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company nor Ulrich Museum of Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company nor Ulrich Museum of Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Ulrich Museum of Art company employs more people globally than Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans nor Ulrich Museum of Art 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