Comparison Overview

Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens

VS

Museum of Wisconsin Art

Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens

1777 E Broad Street, None, Columbus, OH, US, 43203
Last Update: 2025-12-02

Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens is a premier botanical landmark and cultural attraction featuring exceptional plant collections and gardens, seasonal art- and nature-based exhibitions, and a dynamic array of educational opportunities and special events for visitors of all ages.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 143
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Museum of Wisconsin Art

205 Veterans Avenue, West Bend, WI, 53095, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

The Museum of Wisconsin Art (MOWA) explores the art and culture of Wisconsin. Founded in 1961, MOWA is one of the top museums of regional art in the United States, with almost 5,000 works of contemporary and historic art by more than 350 artists. Through rotating exhibitions and educational programs, MOWA provides an innovative forum for the culturally engaged. In 2013, MOWA opened its new 32,000-square-foot facility in downtown West Bend. The building, the first museum commission by acclaimed architect Jim Shields of HGA Architects, is situated along the west bend of the Milwaukee River on a triangular plot of land that inspired the facility’s modern wedge shape. An expansive wall of windows follows the curve of the river bank and minimizes the boundaries between interior and exterior. The museum houses five permanent collection galleries, three temporary exhibition spaces, and two classrooms as well as visible art storage, a shop, and a large atrium for public events.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 29
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/franklin-park-conservatory.jpeg
Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
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/museum-of-wisconsin-art.jpeg
Museum of Wisconsin 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
Compliance Summary
Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Museum of Wisconsin Art
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 Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Museum of Wisconsin Art in 2025.

Incident History — Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/franklin-park-conservatory.jpeg
Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/museum-of-wisconsin-art.jpeg
Museum of Wisconsin Art
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Museum of Wisconsin Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Museum of Wisconsin Art company has not reported any.

In the current year, Museum of Wisconsin Art company and Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Museum of Wisconsin Art company nor Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Museum of Wisconsin Art company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Museum of Wisconsin Art company nor Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company nor Museum of Wisconsin Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Museum of Wisconsin Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company nor Museum of Wisconsin Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company employs more people globally than Museum of Wisconsin Art company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Museum of Wisconsin Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Museum of Wisconsin Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Museum of Wisconsin Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Museum of Wisconsin Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Museum of Wisconsin Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Franklin Park Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Museum of Wisconsin Art holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to 1.10.4, some of HedgeDoc's OAuth2 endpoints for social login providers such as Google, GitHub, GitLab, Facebook or Dropbox lack CSRF protection, since they don't send a state parameter and verify the response using this parameter. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.10.4.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

Langflow versions up to and including 1.6.9 contain a chained vulnerability that enables account takeover and remote code execution. An overly permissive CORS configuration (allow_origins='*' with allow_credentials=True) combined with a refresh token cookie configured as SameSite=None allows a malicious webpage to perform cross-origin requests that include credentials and successfully call the refresh endpoint. An attacker-controlled origin can therefore obtain fresh access_token / refresh_token pairs for a victim session. Obtained tokens permit access to authenticated endpoints — including built-in code-execution functionality — allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary code and achieve full system compromise.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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

A vulnerability was detected in xerrors Yuxi-Know up to 0.4.0. This vulnerability affects the function OtherEmbedding.aencode of the file /src/models/embed.py. Performing manipulation of the argument health_url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The patch is named 0ff771dc1933d5a6b78f804115e78a7d8625c3f3. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. The vendor responded with a vulnerability confirmation and a list of security measures they have established already (e.g. disabled URL parsing, disabled URL upload mode, removed URL-to-markdown conversion).

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Rarlab RAR App up to 7.11 Build 127 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.rarlab.rar. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 7.20 build 128 is able to mitigate this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor responded very professional: "This is the real vulnerability affecting RAR for Android only. WinRAR and Unix RAR versions are not affected. We already fixed it in RAR for Android 7.20 build 128 and we publicly mentioned it in that version changelog. (...) To avoid confusion among users, it would be useful if such disclosure emphasizes that it is RAR for Android only issue and WinRAR isn't affected."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.1
Severity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 2.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A weakness has been identified in ZSPACE Q2C NAS up to 1.1.0210050. Affected by this issue is the function zfilev2_api.OpenSafe of the file /v2/file/safe/open of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. This manipulation of the argument safe_dir causes command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 9.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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