Comparison Overview

International Spy Museum

VS

Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site

International Spy Museum

700 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, 20024 , US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The International Spy Museum, a 501(c)(3) private non-profit, opened in Washington, DC on July 19, 2002. It is the only public museum in the United States solely dedicated to espionage and the only one in the world to provide a global perspective on an all-but-invisible profession that has shaped history and continues to have a significant impact on world events. The Museum features the largest collection of international espionage artifacts ever placed on public display. Many of these objects are being seen by the public for the first time. These artifacts illuminate the work of famous spies and pivotal espionage actions as well as help bring to life the strategies and techniques of the men and women behind some of the most secretive espionage missions in world history. The mission of the International Spy Museum is to educate the public about espionage and intelligence in an engaging way and to provide a context that fosters understanding of their important role in and impact on current and historic events. The Museum focuses on human intelligence and reveals the role spies have played in world events throughout history. It is committed to the apolitical presentation of the history of espionage in order to provide visitors with nonbiased, accurate information.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 183
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site

14520 River Rd, Plano, Illinois, 60545, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Designed by Mies van der Rohe in 1945 and constructed in 1951, the Farnsworth House is a vital part of American iconography, an exemplary representation of both the International Style of architecture as well as the modern movement’s desire to juxtapose the sleek, streamline design of Modern structure with the organic environment of the surrounding nature. Mies constructed this glass box residence of “almost nothing” for Dr. Edith Farnsworth as a country retreat along the Fox River in Plano, IL. It continued to be a private residence for over 50 years until Landmarks Illinois and the National Trust for Historic Preservation purchased it in 2003. Today it is owned and managed by the Trust and the site is open as a public museum. See what's happening - https://linktr.ee/farnsworthhouse

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 11
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/international-spy-museum.jpeg
International Spy 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/farnsworth-house.jpeg
Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site
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
International Spy Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site
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 International Spy Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site in 2026.

Incident History — International Spy Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

International Spy Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/international-spy-museum.jpeg
International Spy Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/farnsworth-house.jpeg
Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

International Spy Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to International Spy Museum company.

In the current year, Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company and International Spy Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company nor International Spy Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company nor International Spy Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company nor International Spy Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither International Spy Museum company nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither International Spy Museum nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither International Spy Museum company nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

International Spy Museum company employs more people globally than Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither International Spy Museum nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither International Spy Museum nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither International Spy Museum nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither International Spy Museum nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither International Spy Museum nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site holds HIPAA certification.

Neither International Spy Museum nor Edith Farnsworth House, a National Trust for Historic Preservation Historic Site 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