Comparison Overview

Historic Hope Plantation

VS

SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium

Historic Hope Plantation

132 Hope House Ln, Windsor, North Carolina, 27983, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Restored home of former North Carolina Governor David Stone (1770-1818). Located four miles west of Windsor, NC, the plantation complex offers unique insights to the late 18th and 19th century rural life in Eastern North Carolina and the South. The centerpiece of the plantation is the c. 1803 Hope Mansion.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 3
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium

4450 Park Ave., Bridgeport, CT, 06604, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The Discovery Science Center's mission is to engage, excite, and educate visitors in the exploration of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) ideas through interactive experiences that promote new insights. The Science Center offers a variety of programs year-round designed to engage, excite, and educate young learners through experiences that inspire wonder and ignite creativity as the foundation for a lifetime love of STEM learning and exploration. The Discovery Science Center presents science, not as a set of facts or equations but as the birthplace of wonder, exploration, and questioning; technology, not as the latest gadgetry but as the launch pad for invention, production, and creativity; engineering, not as unfathomable physics problems but as the home of design, problem solving, and critical thinking; and mathematics, not as Algebra 1 but as a buffet table of logic, pattern, and proofs. By providing programmatic experiences that resonate with the innate curiosity, learning desire, and spirit of exploration of our young learners we encourage them to be scientists, engineers, and inventors today so that they are better prepared to embrace tomorrow's STEM challenges and explore career options.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 26
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-hope-plantation.jpeg
Historic Hope Plantation
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/the-discovery-museum-and-planetarium.jpeg
SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium
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 Hope Plantation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium
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 Hope Plantation in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium in 2026.

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

Historic Hope Plantation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-hope-plantation.jpeg
Historic Hope Plantation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-discovery-museum-and-planetarium.jpeg
SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Historic Hope Plantation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Historic Hope Plantation company.

In the current year, SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company and Historic Hope Plantation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company nor Historic Hope Plantation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company nor Historic Hope Plantation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company nor Historic Hope Plantation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation company nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation company nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium company employs more people globally than Historic Hope Plantation company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation nor SHU Discovery Science Center and Planetarium 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