Comparison Overview

Great Lakes Science Center

VS

Minnesota Historical Society

Great Lakes Science Center

601 Erieside Ave, Cleveland, 44114, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.greatscience.com

Great Lakes Science Center, home of the NASA Glenn Visitor Center, makes science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) come alive for more than 300,000 visitors a year. With hundreds of hands-on exhibits, temporary exhibitions, the Cleveland Clinic DOME Theater, Steamship William G. Mather, daily science demonstrations, seasonal camps and more, guests will always find a reason to Stay Curious. The Science Center is funded in part by the citizens of Cuyahoga County through Cuyahoga Arts and Culture.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 107
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Minnesota Historical Society

345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55102, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mnhs.org/

The Minnesota Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural institution established in 1849. The Society collects, preserves and tells the story of Minnesota’s past through museum exhibits, libraries and collections, historic sites, educational programs and book publishing. Using the power of history to transform lives, the Society preserves our past, shares our state’s stories and connects people with history.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 515
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/great-lakes-science-center.jpeg
Great Lakes Science Center
—
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/minnesota-historical-society.jpeg
Minnesota Historical Society
—
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
Great Lakes Science Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Minnesota Historical Society
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 Great Lakes Science Center in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Minnesota Historical Society in 2026.

Incident History — Great Lakes Science Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Great Lakes Science Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Minnesota Historical Society (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Minnesota Historical Society cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/great-lakes-science-center.jpeg
Great Lakes Science Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/minnesota-historical-society.jpeg
Minnesota Historical Society
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Minnesota Historical Society company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Great Lakes Science Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Minnesota Historical Society company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Great Lakes Science Center company.

In the current year, Minnesota Historical Society company and Great Lakes Science Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Minnesota Historical Society company nor Great Lakes Science Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Minnesota Historical Society company nor Great Lakes Science Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Minnesota Historical Society company nor Great Lakes Science Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center company nor Minnesota Historical Society company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center nor Minnesota Historical Society holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center company nor Minnesota Historical Society company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Minnesota Historical Society company employs more people globally than Great Lakes Science Center company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center nor Minnesota Historical Society holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center nor Minnesota Historical Society holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center nor Minnesota Historical Society holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center nor Minnesota Historical Society holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center nor Minnesota Historical Society holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Great Lakes Science Center nor Minnesota Historical Society 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