Comparison Overview

Coral Gables Museum

VS

Clyde Peeling's Reptiland

Coral Gables Museum

285 Aragon Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida, 33134, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.coralgablesmuseum.org/

The Museum’s mission is to celebrate, investigate and explore the civic arts of architecture and urban and environmental design, and the visual arts, including fostering an appreciation for the history, vision, and cultural landscape of Coral Gables; promoting beauty and planning as well as historic, artistic and environmental preservation for a broad audience, including children, families, and community members, as well as local, regional, national and international visitors. The Museum optimizes its mission by cultivating effective partnerships, and providing programming that includes exhibitions, collections, educational offerings, lectures, tours, publications and special events.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 23
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Clyde Peeling's Reptiland

18628 US Route 15, Allenwood, Pennsylvania, US, 17810
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
https://reptiland.com

Clyde Peeling's Reptiland is an AZA accredited zoo specializing in reptiles and amphibians from around the world. Our mission is to educate the public on the less-loved members of the animal kingdom and the importance of wildlife conservation, in a fun and entertaining format. We do this through naturalistic habitats, interactive exhibits, live shows, and hands-on encounters.

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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coral-gables-museum.jpeg
Coral Gables 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/clyde-peeling's-reptiland.jpeg
Clyde Peeling's Reptiland
—
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
Coral Gables Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Clyde Peeling's Reptiland
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 Coral Gables Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Clyde Peeling's Reptiland in 2026.

Incident History — Coral Gables Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coral Gables Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Clyde Peeling's Reptiland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Clyde Peeling's Reptiland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coral-gables-museum.jpeg
Coral Gables Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/clyde-peeling's-reptiland.jpeg
Clyde Peeling's Reptiland
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Coral Gables Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Coral Gables Museum company.

In the current year, Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company and Coral Gables Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company nor Coral Gables Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company nor Coral Gables Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company nor Coral Gables Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Coral Gables Museum company nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Coral Gables Museum nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Coral Gables Museum company nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Coral Gables Museum company employs more people globally than Clyde Peeling's Reptiland company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Coral Gables Museum nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Coral Gables Museum nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Coral Gables Museum nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Coral Gables Museum nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Coral Gables Museum nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Coral Gables Museum nor Clyde Peeling's Reptiland 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