Comparison Overview

Lone Star Flight Museum

VS

Birmingham Museum of Art

Lone Star Flight Museum

11551 Aerospace Avenue, Houston, Texas, 77034, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lonestarflight.org

The Lone Star Flight Museum's (LSFM) mission is to celebrate flight and achievement in Texas aviation history; and educate and engage our youth through Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Lead by Anna Hawley, LSFM opened its $38 million state-of-the-art museum on Labor Day weekend 2017 at Ellington Field in Houston, TX. Founded in 1985, the 130,000 square foot museum includes the Texas Aviation Hall of Fame, historic aircraft and period artifacts, and a $1 million Aviation Learning Center featuring simulator-based STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) curriculum, that provides a hands-on, interactive learning environment to inspire and educate students. LSFM’s vision is to be a world-class educational museum linking an understanding of the past with inspiration for the future.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 34
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Birmingham Museum of Art

2000 Reverend Abraham Woods Jr Blvd, Birmingham, Alabama, undefined, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.artsbma.org

Founded in 1951, the Birmingham Museum of Art has one of the finest collections in the Southeast. More than 26,000 objects displayed and housed within the Museum represent a rich panorama of cultures, including Asian, European, American, African, Pre-Columbian, and Native American. Highlights include the Museum’s collection of Asian art, Vietnamese ceramics, the Kress collection of Renaissance and Baroque paintings, sculpture, and decorative arts from the late 13th century to the 1750s, and the Museum’s world-renowned collection of Wedgwood, the largest outside of England.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 88
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/lone-star-flight-museum.jpeg
Lone Star Flight 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/birmingham-museum-of-art.jpeg
Birmingham 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
Compliance Summary
Lone Star Flight Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Birmingham Museum of Art
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 Lone Star Flight Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Birmingham Museum of Art in 2026.

Incident History — Lone Star Flight Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lone Star Flight Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lone-star-flight-museum.jpeg
Lone Star Flight Museum
Incidents

No Incident

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

No Incident

FAQ

Both Lone Star Flight Museum company and Birmingham Museum of Art company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Birmingham Museum of Art company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Lone Star Flight Museum company.

In the current year, Birmingham Museum of Art company and Lone Star Flight Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Birmingham Museum of Art company nor Lone Star Flight Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Birmingham Museum of Art company nor Lone Star Flight Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Birmingham Museum of Art company nor Lone Star Flight Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum company nor Birmingham Museum of Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum nor Birmingham Museum of Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum company nor Birmingham Museum of Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Birmingham Museum of Art company employs more people globally than Lone Star Flight Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum nor Birmingham Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum nor Birmingham Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum nor Birmingham Museum of Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum nor Birmingham Museum of Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum nor Birmingham Museum of Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lone Star Flight Museum nor Birmingham Museum of Art 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