Comparison Overview

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens

VS

Ulrich Museum of Art

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens

4155 Linnean Ave NW, None, Washington, DC, US, 20008-3806
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Hillwood's mission is to delight and engage visitors with an experience inspired by the life of our founder, Marjorie Merriweather Post, and her passion for excellence, gracious hospitality, art, history, and gardens. As a female business trailblazer, Marjorie Merriweather Post had extremely high standards for the work she did and a signature style for making people feel welcome in her home. Hillwood's staff and volunteers pride themselves on being an extension of Post's story by creating an oasis in Washington, D.C., where everyone is welcome to learn, explore, and be inspired. From our 13 acres of landscaped gardens to our magnificent collections of fine and decorative arts to exploring the captivating life of Marjorie Merriweather Post, Hillwood offers opportunities to be a part of something fabulous.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 125
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Ulrich Museum of Art

Wichita State University, Wichita, 67260-0046, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

As the region’s source for modern and contemporary art, the Ulrich Museum of Art, located on the campus of Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, provides a unique opportunity to view our world through the eyes of the leading artists of today. The museum seeks to expand human experience through encounters with the art of our time by developing and presenting an endless stream of groundbreaking exhibitions, prominent guest artists, art parties, fun family events, and compelling performances that explore today’s visual culture.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 31
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/hillwood-museum-&-gardens.jpeg
Hillwood Estate, Museum & 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/ulrich-museum-of-art.jpeg
Ulrich Museum of 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
Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ulrich Museum of 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 Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Ulrich Museum of Art in 2026.

Incident History — Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hillwood-museum-&-gardens.jpeg
Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ulrich-museum-of-art.jpeg
Ulrich Museum of Art
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Ulrich Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Ulrich Museum of Art company has not reported any.

In the current year, Ulrich Museum of Art company and Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ulrich Museum of Art company nor Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Ulrich Museum of Art company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ulrich Museum of Art company nor Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company nor Ulrich Museum of Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company nor Ulrich Museum of Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens company employs more people globally than Ulrich Museum of Art company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens nor Ulrich Museum of Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens nor Ulrich Museum of Art 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