Comparison Overview

Historic Richmond Town

VS

Living History Farms

Historic Richmond Town

441 Clarke Avenue, Staten Island, New York, 10306, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.historicrichmondtown.org

Historic Richmond Town is New York City's open air museum that tells the stories of ordinary Americans who have worked hard for centuries to build an extraordinary country. Situated on over 100 acres of historic parkland and housing over 30 original historic structure and millions of artifacts that date back to the 1600s, Historic Richmond Town is in a unique position to share centuries of American life from the 17th century until today. Currently, fully funded capital projects of over $10,000,000 are underway to enhance the visitors'​ experience. Historic Richmond Town (also know as the Staten Island Historical Society) is a cultural institution of the City of New York in partnership with the Department of Cultural Affairs, Department of Parks and Recreation and Historic House Trust. It is the oldest (1856) and largest cultural institution in the borough of parks.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 31
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Living History Farms

11121 Hickman Road, Urbandale, IA, 50322, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
https://www.LHF.org

Living History Farms tells the story of 300 years of agricultural history through three working farms: a 1700 Ioway Indian Farm, 1850 Pioneer Farm, and a 1900 Farm. There is also an 1875 town, which features a blacksmith, broom maker, general store, drug store, print shop, and more. The Flynn Mansion and Barn, which are on the National Register of Historic Places, are original to the 500 acres that Living History Farms is built on. Open May-October with many special events. Check the website for details.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
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/historic-richmond-town.jpeg
Historic Richmond Town
—
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/living-history-farms.jpeg
Living History Farms
—
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 Richmond Town
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Living History Farms
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 Richmond Town in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Living History Farms in 2026.

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

Historic Richmond Town cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Living History Farms (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Living History Farms cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-richmond-town.jpeg
Historic Richmond Town
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/living-history-farms.jpeg
Living History Farms
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Historic Richmond Town company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Living History Farms company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Living History Farms company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Historic Richmond Town company.

In the current year, Living History Farms company and Historic Richmond Town company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Living History Farms company nor Historic Richmond Town company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Living History Farms company nor Historic Richmond Town company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Living History Farms company nor Historic Richmond Town company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Historic Richmond Town company nor Living History Farms company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Historic Richmond Town nor Living History Farms holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Historic Richmond Town company nor Living History Farms company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Living History Farms company employs more people globally than Historic Richmond Town company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Historic Richmond Town nor Living History Farms holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Historic Richmond Town nor Living History Farms holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Historic Richmond Town nor Living History Farms holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Historic Richmond Town nor Living History Farms holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Historic Richmond Town nor Living History Farms holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Historic Richmond Town nor Living History Farms 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