Comparison Overview

Gallery Aferro

VS

Historic Sotterley

Gallery Aferro

73 Market Street, Newark, NJ, 07102, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://aferro.org

The mission of Gallery Aferro is to bring cultural education and aesthetic engagement with contemporary issues to all people equally, and to create an environment where artists can gather and share physical and intellectual resources. We are working towards an arts community that is available to everyone, without sacrificing standards or quality of experience.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Historic Sotterley

44300 Sotterley Ln, Hollywood, 20636, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799
https://www.sotterley.org/

Historic Sotterley, a National Historic Landmark, and UNESCO Site of Memory for the Routes of Enslaved People, is a remnant of an almost 6,000 acre plantation farm with an interpreted history dating back to the turn of the 18th century. Sotterley was a site of slavery for 165 years and was home to the sixth governor of Maryland. Sotterley today consists of almost 100 acres of breathtaking beauty on the Patuxent River that includes over six miles of nature trails, Colonial Revival Gardens, and over 20 historic buildings. The Manor House had its beginnings in 1703 and has undergone many changes and additions over time. Sotterley’s only surviving original 19th century Slave Cabin illustrates the lives of many St. Mary’s County people from the mid-1800s into the early 20th century. We invite you to immerse yourself in the natural beauty of Sotterley and also its rich stories of history and cultures. We hope you will join us for the wide variety of public programming offered throughout the year. Become a part of our collective historic legacy by becoming a supporter! Visit Sotterley’s website at www.sotterley.org.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 11
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/gallery-aferro.jpeg
Gallery Aferro
—
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-sotterley.jpeg
Historic Sotterley
—
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
Gallery Aferro
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Historic Sotterley
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 Gallery Aferro in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historic Sotterley in 2026.

Incident History — Gallery Aferro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gallery Aferro cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Historic Sotterley cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gallery-aferro.jpeg
Gallery Aferro
Incidents
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-sotterley.jpeg
Historic Sotterley
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Gallery Aferro company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Historic Sotterley company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Historic Sotterley company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Gallery Aferro company.

In the current year, Historic Sotterley company and Gallery Aferro company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historic Sotterley company nor Gallery Aferro company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historic Sotterley company nor Gallery Aferro company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historic Sotterley company nor Gallery Aferro company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Gallery Aferro company nor Historic Sotterley company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Gallery Aferro nor Historic Sotterley holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Gallery Aferro company nor Historic Sotterley company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Historic Sotterley company employs more people globally than Gallery Aferro company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Gallery Aferro nor Historic Sotterley holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Gallery Aferro nor Historic Sotterley holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Gallery Aferro nor Historic Sotterley holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Gallery Aferro nor Historic Sotterley holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Gallery Aferro nor Historic Sotterley holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Gallery Aferro nor Historic Sotterley 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