Comparison Overview

Historic Deerfield

VS

Utah's Hogle Zoo

Historic Deerfield

84 OLD MAIN ST, None, Deerfield, Massachusetts, US, 01342
Last Update: 2025-12-02
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.historic-deerfield.org

Historic Deerfield is a museum of early American life situated in an authentic 18th-century New England village in the Connecticut River Valley of Massachusetts. Its historic houses and world-famous collection of early American decorative arts open doors to new perspectives that inspire people to seek a deeper understanding of themselves, their communities, and the world.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 72
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Utah's Hogle Zoo

2600 E Sunnyside Ave, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799
http://www.hoglezoo.org

Utah's Hogle Zoo creates champions for wildlife. We are located in Salt Lake City at the mouth of Emigration Canyon. Our property spans over 42 acres of hillside terrain and is home to diverse resident animals. Visitors of all ages and backgrounds can enjoy hundreds of animals in Wild Utah, African Savanna, Great Apes, Primate Forest, Small Animal Building, Rocky Shores, and Asian Highlands. Families can also enjoy a spin on the carousel or let the little ones explore the playground or splash pad. As a non-profit 501(c) (3) organization, Utah's Hogle Zoo meets and exceeds the highest animal care, welfare, and facilities standards in the world as an accredited member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) -- a distinction given to only 10% of animal institutions. Utah’s Hogle Zoo is grateful to be part of the Zoo, Arts, & Parks (ZAP) program. ZAP aims to enhance Salt Lake County resident and visitor experiences through art, cultural, and recreational offerings. Utah's Hogle Zoo welcomes resourceful employees passionate about preserving the natural world and taking our mission to heart. Every position, from cashier to keeper, is vital to creating champions for wildlife each day.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 155
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/historic-deerfield.jpeg
Historic Deerfield
—
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/hogle-zoo.jpeg
Utah's Hogle Zoo
—
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
Historic Deerfield
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Utah's Hogle Zoo
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 Historic Deerfield in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Utah's Hogle Zoo in 2025.

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

Historic Deerfield cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Utah's Hogle Zoo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Utah's Hogle Zoo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-deerfield.jpeg
Historic Deerfield
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hogle-zoo.jpeg
Utah's Hogle Zoo
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Utah's Hogle Zoo company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Historic Deerfield company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Utah's Hogle Zoo company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Historic Deerfield company.

In the current year, Utah's Hogle Zoo company and Historic Deerfield company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Utah's Hogle Zoo company nor Historic Deerfield company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Utah's Hogle Zoo company nor Historic Deerfield company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Utah's Hogle Zoo company nor Historic Deerfield company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Historic Deerfield company nor Utah's Hogle Zoo company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Historic Deerfield nor Utah's Hogle Zoo holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Historic Deerfield company nor Utah's Hogle Zoo company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Utah's Hogle Zoo company employs more people globally than Historic Deerfield company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Historic Deerfield nor Utah's Hogle Zoo holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Historic Deerfield nor Utah's Hogle Zoo holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Historic Deerfield nor Utah's Hogle Zoo holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Historic Deerfield nor Utah's Hogle Zoo holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Historic Deerfield nor Utah's Hogle Zoo holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Historic Deerfield nor Utah's Hogle Zoo holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34, there is a vulnerability in ImageMagick’s Magick++ layer that manifests when Options::fontFamily is invoked with an empty string. Clearing a font family calls RelinquishMagickMemory on _drawInfo->font, freeing the font string but leaving _drawInfo->font pointing to freed memory while _drawInfo->family is set to that (now-invalid) pointer. Any later cleanup or reuse of _drawInfo->font re-frees or dereferences dangling memory. DestroyDrawInfo and other setters (Options::font, Image::font) assume _drawInfo->font remains valid, so destruction or subsequent updates trigger crashes or heap corruption. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
References
Description

FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 has a Remote Code Execution via Unrestricted File Upload in Ad Management. FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 allows authenticated remote attackers to upload files that the server later executes (or stores in an executable location) without sufficient validation, sanitization, or execution restrictions. An authenticated remote attacker can upload a crafted PHP file and cause the application or web server to execute it, resulting in remote code execution (RCE).

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

PHPGurukul Billing System 1.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the admin/index.php endpoint. Specifically, the username parameter accepts unvalidated user input, which is then concatenated directly into a backend SQL query.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

NMIS/BioDose software V22.02 and previous versions contain executable binaries with plain text hard-coded passwords. These hard-coded passwords could allow unauthorized access to both the application and database.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
cvss4
Base: 8.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

NMIS/BioDose V22.02 and previous versions' installation directory paths by default have insecure file permissions, which in certain deployment scenarios can enable users on client workstations to modify the program executables and libraries.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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