Comparison Overview

English Touring Opera

VS

Prague Shakespeare Company

English Touring Opera

120 Peckham Hill Street, London, undefined, SE15 5JT, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.englishtouringopera.org.uk

Since 1979, English Touring Opera (ETO) have visited more towns and cities than any other UK opera company. ETO’s commitment to delivering outstanding live opera productions to every region of England saw it visit 29 venues in 2019, challenging the the geographical barriers that many face in accessing live opera. ETO delivers industry-leading Learning and Participation projects which allow people of diverse ages, needs and backgrounds to experience, create and participate in opera. Alongside the five mainstage shows, every year the company tours two specially commissioned operas for children and young people with special educational needs, a series of creative workshops for older people with dementia, and more than 70 workshops for people of all abilities and ages. Altogether, ETO’s work reaches over 50,000 people every year.

NAICS: 711
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 53
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Prague Shakespeare Company

Ovocný trh 6, Prague, Czech Republic 110 00, CZ
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pragueshakespeare.cz

The Prague Shakespeare Company (PSC) presents professional theatre productions, workshops, classes, lectures and other theatrical events of the highest quality, conducted primarily in English by a multinational ensemble of professional theatre artists, with an emphasis on the plays of William Shakespeare. PSC brings to the Czech Republic, European and world audiences English-language based performances that are fresh, bold, imaginative, thought-provoking, and eminently accessible, connecting the truths of the past with the challenges and possibilities of today.

NAICS: 711
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 22
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/english-touring-opera.jpeg
English Touring Opera
—
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/prague-shakespeare-company.jpeg
Prague Shakespeare Company
—
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
English Touring Opera
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Prague Shakespeare Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Performing Arts Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for English Touring Opera in 2025.

Incidents vs Performing Arts Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Prague Shakespeare Company in 2025.

Incident History — English Touring Opera (X = Date, Y = Severity)

English Touring Opera cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Prague Shakespeare Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prague Shakespeare Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/english-touring-opera.jpeg
English Touring Opera
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/prague-shakespeare-company.jpeg
Prague Shakespeare Company
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Prague Shakespeare Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to English Touring Opera company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Prague Shakespeare Company company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to English Touring Opera company.

In the current year, Prague Shakespeare Company company and English Touring Opera company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Prague Shakespeare Company company nor English Touring Opera company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Prague Shakespeare Company company nor English Touring Opera company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Prague Shakespeare Company company nor English Touring Opera company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither English Touring Opera company nor Prague Shakespeare Company company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither English Touring Opera nor Prague Shakespeare Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither English Touring Opera company nor Prague Shakespeare Company company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

English Touring Opera company employs more people globally than Prague Shakespeare Company company, reflecting its scale as a Performing Arts.

Neither English Touring Opera nor Prague Shakespeare Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither English Touring Opera nor Prague Shakespeare Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither English Touring Opera nor Prague Shakespeare Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither English Touring Opera nor Prague Shakespeare Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither English Touring Opera nor Prague Shakespeare Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither English Touring Opera nor Prague Shakespeare Company holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References