Comparison Overview

Coral Springs Museum of Art

VS

Museum Education Roundtable (MER)

Coral Springs Museum of Art

2855 Coral Springs Drive Suite A, Coral Springs, Florida, 33065, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Coral Springs Museum of Art is a museums and institutions company based out of 2855 Coral Springs Drive Suite A, Coral Springs, Florida, United States. What began late in 1996 as a City project to build a comprehensive recreation and community center, soon turned into The Coral Springs Center for the Arts – a performance theater and art museum. Housed in the impressive 30,000 square foot center for the arts building is the equally impressive Coral Springs Museum of Art which was incorporated in January of 1997. Our mission is to engage and connect our diverse communities with dynamic exhibits, exceptional art education, stimulating specialty programs and inspired events to ignite cultural enrichment.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 25
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Museum Education Roundtable (MER)

PO Box 15727, Washington, DC, 20003, US
Last Update: 2026-01-04
Between 750 and 799

KNOWLEDGE IN ACTION SHARING, TEACHING, LISTENING, GUIDING, FORECASTING Formed in 1969, the Museum Education Roundtable fosters professionalism among museum educators by encouraging leadership, scholarship and research in museum- based learning. MER provides leadership in professional development for a broad and diverse audience of museum practitioners and educators. Through its publications, programs, and active communications network, MER: - Supports professionalism among peers and others committed to excellence in museum-based learning, - Encourages leadership, scholarship, and research in museum-based learning, and - Advocates the inclusion and application of museum-based learning in general education and life-long learning. MER publishes the Journal of Museum Education, the only American journal that is devoted to the theory and practice of museum education. Written by museum and education professionals, JME articles explore innovations in the field of museum education, teaching strategies for use in museums and other informal learning environments, visitor research, and evaluation.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 17
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-springs-museum-of-art.jpeg
Coral Springs 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/museum-education-roundtable.jpeg
Museum Education Roundtable (MER)
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 Springs Museum of Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Museum Education Roundtable (MER)
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 Springs Museum of Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Museum Education Roundtable (MER) in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — Museum Education Roundtable (MER) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Museum Education Roundtable (MER) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coral-springs-museum-of-art.jpeg
Coral Springs Museum of Art
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/museum-education-roundtable.jpeg
Museum Education Roundtable (MER)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Coral Springs Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Coral Springs Museum of Art company.

In the current year, Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company and Coral Springs Museum of Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company nor Coral Springs Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company nor Coral Springs Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company nor Coral Springs Museum of Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art company nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art company nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Coral Springs Museum of Art company employs more people globally than Museum Education Roundtable (MER) company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Coral Springs Museum of Art nor Museum Education Roundtable (MER) 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