Comparison Overview

Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park

VS

Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ)

Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park

539 William Hilton Pkwy, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, US, 29926
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park [HMFP], Inc. is a non-profit South Carolina corporation which was formed: To preserve, promote and honor Historic Mitchelville, the first self-governed town of formerly enslaved people in the United States. On November 7, 1861, Union forces attacked two Confederate forts and the Sea Islands of South Carolina near Port Royal. “The Battle of Port Royal” later drove the Confederate forces to retreat to the mainland. One island, Hilton Head Island, immediately became the headquarters for the Union Army. It also would become the setting for the first self-governed town of freed Africans in the country. After the Battle of Port Royal, men, women, and children fled the plantations and sought freedom with the Union army. Due to overcrowding in the barracks in the Union camp, General Ormsby Mitchel dedicated a large parcel of the land, near the old Drayton Plantation, to the newly freed Blacks that they would be able to cultivate and govern. Individuals and families were given a quarter acre lot and material to build a home. The freedmen elected their own officials, created their own system of law, built three churches, four stores and established the first compulsory school system in the state of South Carolina. Education was required for every child from age 6 to 15 and when the school district was created in 1866, there were 238 students in the town. Commercial organizations and churches were established and weddings were conducted. Men were recruited for the on-going Civil War and Black soldiers built nearby Fort Howell to protect Mitchelville. HMFP, in cooperation with the Town of Hilton Head and Beaufort County, endeavors to establish a cultural attraction in the historic Mitchelville area, that will include replicas of the historic homes, churches, stores and other structures that align with the themes that govern the interpretation of the site.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 5
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ)

1825 Rue Semple, Quebec, Quebec, G1N 4B7, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Depuis 1979, le Centre de conservation du Québec a pour mission de contribuer à la restauration et à la conservation préventive du patrimoine du Québec. Relevant du ministère de la Culture et des Communications du Québec (MCCQ), le Centre regroupe la plus importante équipe de spécialistes de la conservation et de la restauration du patrimoine au Québec. Le soutien financier du MCCQ permet le regroupement d'une équipe pluridisciplinaire de spécialistes capable d'assurer des services touchant des objets et œuvres d'art de tous types de matériaux, de nature simple ou de très grande envergure, en atelier ou à l'extérieur, auprès d'une vaste clientèle. Cette approche synergique garantit l'utilisation optimale d'une précieuse expertise et d'infrastructures coûteuses. Le Centre dispose en effet de locaux et d'équipements spécialisés, sécuritaires et adaptés aux besoins des œuvres et des restaurateurs. Consultez la nétiquette du CCQ : https://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?id=5421#c31378

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 45
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/exploremitchelville.jpeg
Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park
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/centre-conservation-quebec.jpeg
Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ)
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
Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ)
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 Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) in 2026.

Incident History — Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/exploremitchelville.jpeg
Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/centre-conservation-quebec.jpeg
Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company.

In the current year, Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company and Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company nor Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company nor Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company nor Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company.

Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park company employs more people globally than Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Historic Mitchelville Freedom Park nor Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) 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.

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
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

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
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

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
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.

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
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.

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