Comparison Overview

Corning Museum of Glass

VS

Nauticus

Corning Museum of Glass

1 Museum Way, Corning, NY, 14830, US
Last Update: 2025-12-02
Between 750 and 799

The Corning Museum of Glass is the world's largest glass museum, featuring live glassblowing demonstrations, 3,500 years of glass history, contemporary glass art and design, Make Your Own Glass experiences for all ages, and international Shops. The Museum's Rakow Library houses more than 400,000 items on glass and glassmaking, from the 12th century to the present, including publications in 41 languages.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 245
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Nauticus

1 Waterside Dr, None, Norfolk, Virginia, US, 23510
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Nauticus is a maritime discovery center located along the waterfront in downtown, Norfolk offering a unique form of experiential learning for all ages. Through interactive exhibits and STEM to STERN programming, Nauticus uses the museum, Battleship Wisconsin, sailing center, and Schooner Virginia to tell the story of the maritime environment, industry, and the military.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 66
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/corning-museum-of-glass.jpeg
Corning Museum of Glass
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/nauticus-foundation.jpeg
Nauticus
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
Corning Museum of Glass
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Nauticus
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 Corning Museum of Glass in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Nauticus in 2025.

Incident History — Corning Museum of Glass (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Corning Museum of Glass cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Nauticus (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nauticus cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/corning-museum-of-glass.jpeg
Corning Museum of Glass
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nauticus-foundation.jpeg
Nauticus
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Corning Museum of Glass company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Nauticus company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Nauticus company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Corning Museum of Glass company.

In the current year, Nauticus company and Corning Museum of Glass company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Nauticus company nor Corning Museum of Glass company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Nauticus company nor Corning Museum of Glass company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Nauticus company nor Corning Museum of Glass company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass company nor Nauticus company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass nor Nauticus holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass company nor Nauticus company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Corning Museum of Glass company employs more people globally than Nauticus company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass nor Nauticus holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass nor Nauticus holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass nor Nauticus holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass nor Nauticus holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass nor Nauticus holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Corning Museum of Glass nor Nauticus holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.11.1, vllm has a critical remote code execution vector in a config class named Nemotron_Nano_VL_Config. When vllm loads a model config that contains an auto_map entry, the config class resolves that mapping with get_class_from_dynamic_module(...) and immediately instantiates the returned class. This fetches and executes Python from the remote repository referenced in the auto_map string. Crucially, this happens even when the caller explicitly sets trust_remote_code=False in vllm.transformers_utils.config.get_config. In practice, an attacker can publish a benign-looking frontend repo whose config.json points via auto_map to a separate malicious backend repo; loading the frontend will silently run the backend’s code on the victim host. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. Prior to 12.5.0, by crafting a malicious URL, an attacker could access routes that are not allowed, even though the reply.from is defined for specific routes in @fastify/reply-from. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.5.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Gin-vue-admin is a backstage management system based on vue and gin. In 2.8.6 and earlier, attackers can delete any file on the server at will, causing damage or unavailability of server resources. Attackers can control the 'FileMd5' parameter to delete any file and folder.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Portkey.ai Gateway is a blazing fast AI Gateway with integrated guardrails. Prior to 1.14.0, the gateway determined the destination baseURL by prioritizing the value in the x-portkey-custom-host request header. The proxy route then appends the client-specified path to perform an external fetch. This can be maliciously used by users for SSRF attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.14.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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