Comparison Overview

Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens

VS

Historic Columbia

Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens

2612 Lane Park Road, Birmingham, AL, 35223, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Since 1962, Birmingham Botanical Gardens has welcomed visitors from across the region and around the world to explore the Gardens' botanical treasures; enjoy nature; and learn about plants, gardening, and the environment. The Gardens' 67.5 acres contain more than 12,000 plants showcased in two dozen gardens inspired by culture, nature, and collections. A facility of the Birmingham Park and Recreation Board, the Gardens is the result of a public/private partnership between the City of Birmingham and the nonprofit Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens, a mission-driven membership organization that seeks to protect, nurture, and share the wonders of the Gardens. You can help keep the Gardens growing by becoming a Friend today! Visit bbgardens.org/membership to explore seven membership levels (including newly enhanced member benefits). Join the Friends: https://www.bbgardens.org/levels.php Volunteer at the Gardens: https://bbgardens.org/volunteer.php Explore classes: https://bbgardens.org/adult-classes.php Read our blog: https://bbgardens.org/blog/ Donate: https://bbgardens.org/donate.php

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 34
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Historic Columbia

1601 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina, 29201, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

In November 1961, a small group of individuals intent on saving the Ainsley Hall House from demolition officially incorporated as the Historic Columbia. Over the next five decades the organization, which was founded on the premise of preservation and education, would take on the stewardship of seven historic properties in Richland County. Today, the organization serves as a model for local preservation efforts and interpretation of local history. Visit historiccolumbia.org or find us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube for more details. www.historiccolumbia.org

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 34
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/friends-of-birmingham-botanical-gardens.jpeg
Friends of Birmingham 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/historic-columbia-foundation.jpeg
Historic Columbia
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
Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Historic Columbia
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 Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historic Columbia in 2026.

Incident History — Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Historic Columbia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Historic Columbia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/friends-of-birmingham-botanical-gardens.jpeg
Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-columbia-foundation.jpeg
Historic Columbia
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Historic Columbia company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Historic Columbia company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company.

In the current year, Historic Columbia company and Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historic Columbia company nor Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historic Columbia company nor Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historic Columbia company nor Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company nor Historic Columbia company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens nor Historic Columbia holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company nor Historic Columbia company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Both Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens company and Historic Columbia company employ a similar number of people globally.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens nor Historic Columbia holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens nor Historic Columbia holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens nor Historic Columbia holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens nor Historic Columbia holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens nor Historic Columbia holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Friends of Birmingham Botanical Gardens nor Historic Columbia 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