Comparison Overview

Hudson River Museum

VS

Historic Royal Palaces

Hudson River Museum

511 Warburton Avenue, Yonkers, New York, US, 10701
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

The Hudson River Museum is the largest cultural institution in Westchester County and a multidisciplinary complex that draws its identity from its site on the banks of the Hudson River, seeking to broaden the cultural horizons of all its visitors. The Museum collections focus on 19th-century through contemporary American Art; Glenview, an 1876 house on the National Register of Historic Places; Hudson Riverama, an environmental teaching gallery; a state-of-the-art, 120-seat planetarium, and a 400-seat outdoor amphitheater. It presents exhibitions, programs, teaching initiatives, research, collection, preservation, and conservation – a wide range of activities that interpret its collections, interests and communities. Visit us at hrm.org

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 75
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Historic Royal Palaces

East Molesey, Surrey, GB, KT8 9AU
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

We are the charity who love and look after Hampton Court Palace, Kensington Palace, Tower of London, the Banqueting House, Kew Palace, and Hillsborough Castle and Gardens. The palaces are the setting for the stories that shape us all, and we’re bringing them to people in ways that mean more to them. We want everyone to find themselves in the spaces and stories we share. The palaces are owned by The King on behalf of the nation. As an independent charity, we raise all our own funds and depend on the support of our visitors, members, donors, sponsors and volunteers.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 936
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/hudson-river-museum.jpeg
Hudson River 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-royal-palaces.jpeg
Historic Royal Palaces
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
Hudson River Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Historic Royal Palaces
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 Hudson River Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historic Royal Palaces in 2026.

Incident History — Hudson River Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hudson River Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Historic Royal Palaces cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hudson-river-museum.jpeg
Hudson River Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-royal-palaces.jpeg
Historic Royal Palaces
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Historic Royal Palaces company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Hudson River Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Historic Royal Palaces company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Hudson River Museum company.

In the current year, Historic Royal Palaces company and Hudson River Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historic Royal Palaces company nor Hudson River Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historic Royal Palaces company nor Hudson River Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historic Royal Palaces company nor Hudson River Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Hudson River Museum company nor Historic Royal Palaces company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hudson River Museum nor Historic Royal Palaces holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Hudson River Museum company nor Historic Royal Palaces company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Historic Royal Palaces company employs more people globally than Hudson River Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Hudson River Museum nor Historic Royal Palaces holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hudson River Museum nor Historic Royal Palaces holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hudson River Museum nor Historic Royal Palaces holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hudson River Museum nor Historic Royal Palaces holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hudson River Museum nor Historic Royal Palaces holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hudson River Museum nor Historic Royal Palaces 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