Comparison Overview

Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance

VS

Desert Botanical Garden

Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance

2300 Steele St., Denver, Colorado, 80205, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.denverzoo.org

Introducing Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance. New Name. Eternal Mission. For 128 years, Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance has connected people with wildlife. From our early years with just a few Colorado species to the 2,500+ animals thriving in our care today, we have cultivated a welcoming gateway to the wonders of the natural world. Today, our mission, Inspiring Communities to Save Wildlife for Future Generations, has never been more critical. This new name and logo reflect a renewed purpose: to continue delivering exceptional experiences on our historic campus, while doubling down on our commitment to conservation in Colorado and worldwide. #SavingWildlifeTogether

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 465
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Desert Botanical Garden

1201 N Galvin Parkway, Phoenix, Az, 85008, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dbg.org

The Desert Botanical Garden's commitment to the community is to advance excellence in education, research, exhibition, and conservation of desert plants of the world with an emphasis on the Southwestern United States. We will ensure that the Garden is always a compelling attraction that brings to like the many wonders of the desert.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 198
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/denver-zoo.jpeg
Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance
—
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/desert-botanical-garden.jpeg
Desert Botanical Garden
—
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
Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Desert Botanical Garden
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 Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Desert Botanical Garden in 2026.

Incident History — Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Desert Botanical Garden (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Desert Botanical Garden cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/denver-zoo.jpeg
Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/desert-botanical-garden.jpeg
Desert Botanical Garden
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Desert Botanical Garden company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Desert Botanical Garden company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company.

In the current year, Desert Botanical Garden company and Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Desert Botanical Garden company nor Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Desert Botanical Garden company nor Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Desert Botanical Garden company nor Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company nor Desert Botanical Garden company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance nor Desert Botanical Garden holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company nor Desert Botanical Garden company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance company employs more people globally than Desert Botanical Garden company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance nor Desert Botanical Garden holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance nor Desert Botanical Garden holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance nor Desert Botanical Garden holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance nor Desert Botanical Garden holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance nor Desert Botanical Garden holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance nor Desert Botanical Garden 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