Comparison Overview

Magnolia Plantation & Gardens

VS

J. Paul Getty Trust

Magnolia Plantation & Gardens

29414, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

The nation's last surviving large-scale romantic gardens this property began in earnest as a substantial working rice plantation in the colonial era. Today visitors from around the globe flock to Magnolia, as they have since 1869, to revel in the beauty of her gardens and learn something of the flora & fauna of the Lowcountry region. In the last few years Magnolia has entered into a new phase of the plantation's history with the initiation of an ambitious project in African-American history. From Slavery to Freedom is a program designed to acknowledge the genius of thousands of enslaved Africans brought to the Lowcountry. Bringing with them their know-how and rich folkways these people would shape the culture of our region in ways we are only now coming to comprehend.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 27
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

J. Paul Getty Trust

1200 Getty Center Dr, Los Angeles, CA, 90049, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

One of the largest supporters of arts in the world, the J. Paul Getty Trust is an international cultural and philanthropic institution that focuses on the visual arts in all their dimensions. Getty serves both the general public and a wide range of professional communities in Los Angeles and throughout the world. Through the work of the four Getty programs—the Museum, Research Institute, Conservation Institute, and Foundation—the Getty aims to further knowledge and nurture critical seeing through the growth and presentation of its collections and by advancing the understanding and preservation of the world's artistic heritage. The Getty pursues this mission with the conviction that cultural awareness, creativity, and aesthetic enjoyment are essential to a vital and civil society.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 963
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/defaultcompany.jpeg
Magnolia Plantation & Gardens
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/j.-paul-getty-trust.jpeg
J. Paul Getty Trust
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
Magnolia Plantation & Gardens
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
J. Paul Getty Trust
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 Magnolia Plantation & Gardens in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for J. Paul Getty Trust in 2026.

Incident History — Magnolia Plantation & Gardens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Magnolia Plantation & Gardens cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — J. Paul Getty Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J. Paul Getty Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Magnolia Plantation & Gardens
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/j.-paul-getty-trust.jpeg
J. Paul Getty Trust
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to J. Paul Getty Trust company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, J. Paul Getty Trust company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company.

In the current year, J. Paul Getty Trust company and Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither J. Paul Getty Trust company nor Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither J. Paul Getty Trust company nor Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither J. Paul Getty Trust company nor Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company nor J. Paul Getty Trust company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company nor J. Paul Getty Trust company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

J. Paul Getty Trust company employs more people globally than Magnolia Plantation & Gardens company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Magnolia Plantation & Gardens nor J. Paul Getty Trust 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