Comparison Overview

Honolulu Museum of Art

VS

The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum

Honolulu Museum of Art

900 S Beretania St, None, Honolulu, HI, US, 96814
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://honolulumuseum.org

The Honolulu Museum of Art is a unique gathering place where art, global worldviews, culture, and education converge right in the heart of Honolulu, and a vital part of Hawaiʻi’s cultural landscape. In addition to international-caliber temporary exhibitions, the museum features an extensive permanent collection, an art school, an independent art house theatre, and a cafe, all housed within one of the most beautiful and iconic buildings in Honolulu.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 131
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum

215 Giles Street, Havre de Grace, MD, 21078, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://decoymuseum.com

The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum, Inc. is a public museum organized and operated to collect, document, preserve, and interpret waterfowl decoys as a unique form of folk art that is a distinctive element in the cultural landscape of this region – the Lower Susquehanna River and the Upper Chesapeake Bay. The Decoy Museum will engage and educate visitors with exceptional exhibits that describe the centuries-old history of waterfowling as well as the interplay among this region, its people, the environment, and the folk art of decoy making. By so doing, the Decoy Museum will preserve knowledge of these cultural traditions, encourage comprehensive understanding of the history of decoy folk art, and transmit this rich heritage to future generations.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 3
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/honolulu-museum-of-art.jpeg
Honolulu 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-havre-de-grace-decoy-museum.jpeg
The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum
—
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
Honolulu Museum of Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum
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 Honolulu Museum of Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/honolulu-museum-of-art.jpeg
Honolulu Museum of Art
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-havre-de-grace-decoy-museum.jpeg
The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Honolulu Museum of Art company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Honolulu Museum of Art company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company has not reported any.

In the current year, The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company and Honolulu Museum of Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company nor Honolulu Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Honolulu Museum of Art company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company nor Honolulu Museum of Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art company nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art company nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Honolulu Museum of Art company employs more people globally than The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Honolulu Museum of Art nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum 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