Comparison Overview

Jewish Museum of Australia

VS

The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum

Jewish Museum of Australia

26 Alma Road, ST KILDA, VIC, AU, 3182
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Jewish Museum of Australia is a community museum, which aims to explore and share the Jewish experience in Australia and benefit Australia's diverse society. The Jewish Museum of Australia is committed to being a respected and innovative cultural centre, recognised nationally for its excellence in exhibitions, education programs and collection management.

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

The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum

215 Giles Street, Havre de Grace, MD, 21078, US
Last Update: 2026-01-05
Between 750 and 799

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/jewish-museum-of-australia.jpeg
Jewish Museum of Australia
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
Jewish Museum of Australia
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 Jewish Museum of Australia 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 — Jewish Museum of Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jewish Museum of Australia 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/jewish-museum-of-australia.jpeg
Jewish Museum of Australia
Incidents

No Incident

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 Jewish Museum of Australia company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Jewish Museum of Australia company.

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

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

Neither The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum company nor Jewish Museum of Australia company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

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

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

Neither Jewish Museum of Australia nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

Neither Jewish Museum of Australia nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jewish Museum of Australia nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jewish Museum of Australia nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jewish Museum of Australia nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jewish Museum of Australia nor The Havre de Grace Decoy Museum 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