Comparison Overview

Crow Museum of Asian Art

VS

Connecticut Museum of Culture and History

Crow Museum of Asian Art

2010 Flora St, Dallas, Texas, undefined, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The Crow Museum of Asian Art inspires and promotes learning and dialogue about the arts and cultures of Asia through our exhibitions, the research and preservation of our collections, artistic and educational programming, and visitor experience and engagement. We accomplish this in accordance with the highest professional standards, through collaboration with our diverse public and partners in our communities, nationally, and internationally. We define Asia as endlessly diverse, and not of one place, time, or idea. By cultivating compassion and inclusivity through our work, we build greater awareness and a shared sense of what it means to be human.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 58
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Connecticut Museum of Culture and History

1 Elizabeth St., Hartford, CT, 06105, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

The Connecticut Museum of Culture and History is the go-to-destination for those who want to gain a deeper understanding of Connecticut’s culture and history. Here you will learn more about the critical role Connecticut continues to play in American history — and about the many cultures living in the state today. Through collaborative interactive exhibitions and programs, rooted in our world-class collections, you will explore the resiliency of its diverse communities, the creativity of its cultures, and the impact of its innovations.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 51
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/crow-museum-of-asian-art.jpeg
Crow Museum of Asian 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/connecticut-historical-society.jpeg
Connecticut Museum of Culture and History
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
Crow Museum of Asian Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Connecticut Museum of Culture and History
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 Crow Museum of Asian Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Connecticut Museum of Culture and History in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — Connecticut Museum of Culture and History (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Connecticut Museum of Culture and History cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/crow-museum-of-asian-art.jpeg
Crow Museum of Asian Art
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/connecticut-historical-society.jpeg
Connecticut Museum of Culture and History
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Crow Museum of Asian Art company and Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Crow Museum of Asian Art company.

In the current year, Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company and Crow Museum of Asian Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company nor Crow Museum of Asian Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company nor Crow Museum of Asian Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company nor Crow Museum of Asian Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art company nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art company nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Crow Museum of Asian Art company employs more people globally than Connecticut Museum of Culture and History company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Connecticut Museum of Culture and History 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