Comparison Overview

Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark

VS

Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens

Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark

500 25th St, Brooklyn, New York, 11232, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1838 and now a National Historic Landmark, Green-Wood was one of the first rural cemeteries in America. By the early 1860s, it had earned an international reputation for its magnificent beauty and became the prestigious place to be buried, attracting 500,000 visitors a year, second only to Niagara Falls as the nation’s greatest tourist attraction. Crowds flocked there to enjoy family outings, carriage rides, and sculpture viewing in the finest of first generation American landscapes. Green-Wood’s popularity helped inspire the creation of public parks, including New York City’s Central and Prospect Parks. Green-Wood is 478 spectacular acres of hills, valleys, glacial ponds and paths, throughout which exists one of the largest outdoor collections of 19th- and 20th-century statuary and mausoleums. Four seasons of beauty from century-and-a-half-old trees offer a peaceful oasis to visitors, as well as its 560,000 permanent residents, including Leonard Bernstein, Boss Tweed, Charles Ebbets, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Louis Comfort Tiffany, Horace Greeley, Civil War generals, baseball legends, politicians, artists, entertainers and inventors.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 35
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens

Buffalo, 14218, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Created from the visions of extraordinary men; David F. Day, Frederick Law Olmsted, John F. Cowell, Frederick A. Lord and William A. Burnham, this masterpiece opened in 1900. Lord & Burnham, premier designers of Victorian glass houses brought these visions to life with their unique design that was based upon the famous Crystal Palace in Kew Gardens Palm House in England. The Botanical Gardens is a national historic site, education center and tourist destination full of exotic horticulture treasures from around the world. Today, the Botanical Gardens is thriving! Nearly 100,000 people visit annually to enjoy the amazing architecture, and the indoor and outdoor garden sanctuaries. It is a gathering place where visitors can find peace and harmony and enjoy the simple power of the natural world. Some visitors also see it as a place for spiritual healing, meditation and reflection. The Botanical Gardens is a 501(c)(3), not for-profit organization that is dedicated to advancing appreciation for and knowledge of plant life and its connection to people and cultures through its documented living plant collection, historic conservatory, education, research and exhibits.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 33
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/green-wood-cemetery.jpeg
Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark
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/buffalo-and-erie-county-botanical-gardens-inc..jpeg
Buffalo and Erie County 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
Compliance Summary
Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens
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 Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens in 2026.

Incident History — Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/green-wood-cemetery.jpeg
Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/buffalo-and-erie-county-botanical-gardens-inc..jpeg
Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company.

In the current year, Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company and Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company nor Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company nor Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company nor Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark company employs more people globally than Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Green-Wood, a National Historic Landmark nor Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

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

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N