Comparison Overview

Landmark Park Dothan

VS

Historic Royal Palaces

Landmark Park Dothan

430 Landmark Dr., Dothan, AL, 36303, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18

There’s an adventure waiting for you and your family, just on the outskirts of Dothan, at Landmark Park. A 135-acre park built to preserve the natural and cultural heritage of southeast Alabama’s Wiregrass Region. Landmark Park is more than just a place to look. It is a place to participate and experience. Experience history on an 1890’s living history farm, complete with an old farmhouse, smokehouse, cane mill, syrup shed, and sheep, mules, cows, chickens, goats and pigs. Drift back in time in a Victorian gazebo, a one-room schoolhouse, a drugstore and soda fountain, a country store or a turn-of-the-century church. Experience nature with a walk through the woods on an elevated boardwalk, stroll nature trails, visit our interpretive center and planetarium, see wildlife exhibits and have a picnic in our picnic area. Experience the excitement of annual special events like folklife festivals, antique car shows, traveling exhibits, concerts and workshops. Experience the heritage of the Wiregrass Region and experience an adventure!

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 7
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/landmarkparkdothan.jpeg
Landmark Park Dothan
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
Landmark Park Dothan
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 Landmark Park Dothan in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historic Royal Palaces in 2026.

Incident History — Landmark Park Dothan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Landmark Park Dothan 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/landmarkparkdothan.jpeg
Landmark Park Dothan
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 Landmark Park Dothan 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 Landmark Park Dothan company.

In the current year, Historic Royal Palaces company and Landmark Park Dothan company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historic Royal Palaces company nor Landmark Park Dothan company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historic Royal Palaces company nor Landmark Park Dothan company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historic Royal Palaces company nor Landmark Park Dothan company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan company nor Historic Royal Palaces company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan nor Historic Royal Palaces holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan 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 Landmark Park Dothan company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan nor Historic Royal Palaces holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan nor Historic Royal Palaces holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan nor Historic Royal Palaces holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan nor Historic Royal Palaces holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan nor Historic Royal Palaces holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Landmark Park Dothan nor Historic Royal Palaces 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.

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
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

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
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

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
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.

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
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.

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