Comparison Overview

Crow Museum of Asian Art

VS

Great Lakes Children's Museum

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

Great Lakes Children's Museum

13240 S. West Bay Shore Dr., Traverse City, MI, 49684, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Great Lakes Children’s Museum creates hands-on, interactive, and informal educational environments for children and the adults in their lives that invite curiosity, allow exploration, encourage participation, and celebrate the child-like wonder in all of us. Why is that important? We believe every child can benefit from having a safe and welcoming place to explore the world around them at their own pace and in their own way. Great Lakes Children’s Museum exhibits and programs are designed to provide those opportunities for learning as a foundation to developing a life-long love of learning. Children also benefit from interaction with adult caregivers – and that benefit increases with quantity of interaction and frequency. Children’s museums, in general, help children learn through play and help adults learn TO play. Both parties benefit from the experience.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 5
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/great-lakes-children's-museum.jpeg
Great Lakes Children's 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
Compliance Summary
Crow Museum of Asian Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Great Lakes Children's Museum
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 Great Lakes Children's Museum 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 — Great Lakes Children's Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Great Lakes Children's Museum 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/great-lakes-children's-museum.jpeg
Great Lakes Children's Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Crow Museum of Asian Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Great Lakes Children's Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Great Lakes Children's Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Crow Museum of Asian Art company.

In the current year, Great Lakes Children's Museum company and Crow Museum of Asian Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Great Lakes Children's Museum company nor Crow Museum of Asian Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Great Lakes Children's Museum company nor Crow Museum of Asian Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Great Lakes Children's Museum company nor Crow Museum of Asian Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art company nor Great Lakes Children's Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Great Lakes Children's Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art company nor Great Lakes Children's Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Crow Museum of Asian Art company employs more people globally than Great Lakes Children's Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Great Lakes Children's Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Great Lakes Children's Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Great Lakes Children's Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Great Lakes Children's Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Great Lakes Children's Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Crow Museum of Asian Art nor Great Lakes Children's Museum 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