Comparison Overview

Long Island Children's Museum

VS

The National Museum of the Royal Navy

Long Island Children's Museum

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Artfully housed in a former airplane hangar, the award-winning Long Island Children’s Museum is a creative, innovative and inspiring destination for children and their grownups. 40,000-square -feet of indoor and outdoor exhibit space and a state-of-the-art theater provide families with ample opportunities to play and learn…together. The museum’s rotating schedule of workshops, performances and traveling exhibits provide visitors with new experiences each time they visit.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 96
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The National Museum of the Royal Navy

H M Naval Base (PP66) , Portsmouth , PO1 3LJ , GB
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The National Museum of the Royal Navy, established in 2009, tells the story of the four fighting forces of the British Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Fleet Air Arm, the Submarine Service and the Surface Fleet. Ours is the epic story of the Royal Navy, its impact on Britain and the world from its origins to the present day. Our museums include: - The National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, HMS Warrior 1860, Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson’s flagship HMS Victory and First World War Gallipoli campaign survivor HMS M.33. We also manage the marketing and ticketing operation for the destination brand Portsmouth Historic Dockyard on behalf of other onsite partners. - The Royal Navy Submarine Museum with Cold War-era HMS Alliance and Explosion, the Museum of Naval Firepower, both in Gosport. Entry to these museums is included in a Portsmouth Historic Dockyard all attraction ticket and a popular, free water bus runs between the sites during the year. - The Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton, Somerset, home to 103 aircraft. - The U.K’s oldest historic fighting ship still afloat, HMS Trincomalee at The National Museum of the Royal Navy Hartlepool. - HMS Caroline in Belfast, Northern Ireland. - Our affiliates include HMS Unicorn (Dundee); HMS Wellington (London); the Medusa Trust (Portsmouth); the Coastal Forces Heritage Trust (Portsmouth), Haslar Heritage Group, the D-Day Museum (Portsmouth) and HMS Courageous, Devonport. Our extensive collection of Royal Marines regimental artefacts and reserve collections, currently housed within our Collection Centre, with a brand new Royal Marines Museum to open in the future. Our unique collection of venues provides the perfect opportunity for you to wow your guests with a truly unforgettable experience. Whether you’re planning a wedding, private dinner, corporate event or party, we have the perfect venue for you in Portsmouth, Gosport, Yeovilton, Hartlepool and Belfast.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 221
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/long-island-children's-museum.jpeg
Long Island Children's 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
Long Island Children's Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The National Museum of the Royal Navy
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 Long Island Children's Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The National Museum of the Royal Navy in 2026.

Incident History — Long Island Children's Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Long Island Children's Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The National Museum of the Royal Navy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The National Museum of the Royal Navy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/long-island-children's-museum.jpeg
Long Island Children's Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-national-museum-of-the-royal-navy.jpeg
The National Museum of the Royal Navy
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The National Museum of the Royal Navy company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Long Island Children's Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The National Museum of the Royal Navy company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Long Island Children's Museum company.

In the current year, The National Museum of the Royal Navy company and Long Island Children's Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The National Museum of the Royal Navy company nor Long Island Children's Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The National Museum of the Royal Navy company nor Long Island Children's Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The National Museum of the Royal Navy company nor Long Island Children's Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum company nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum company nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The National Museum of the Royal Navy company employs more people globally than Long Island Children's Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Long Island Children's Museum nor The National Museum of the Royal Navy 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