Comparison Overview

MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER

VS

New Britain Museum of American Art

MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER

520 BARRACUDA BLVD, New Smyrna, Florida 32169, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Marine Discovery Center's mission is to protect our coastal ecosystems through education, conservation, and exploration. We provide experiences and expertise in coastal ecology that engage our community, improve our well-being, and inspire conservation of our natural world. Our vision is for a healthy coastal ecosystem . . . for all, forever.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 41
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

New Britain Museum of American Art

56 Lexington Street, New Britain, CT, 06052, US
Last Update: 2026-01-09
Between 750 and 799

The New Britain Museum of American Art’s founding in 1903 entitles the institution to be designated the first museum of strictly American art in the country. That year, a $20,000 gift of gold bonds to the museum’s former parent, the New Britain Institute, from industrialist John Butler Talcott, created funds to purchase ”modern oil paintings.” Subsequent purchases, with advice from New York museums and galleries, further defined ”modern” to mean American works of art, now numbering more than 8,300. With particular strengths in colonial portraiture, the Hudson River School, American Impressionism, and the Ash Can School, not to mention the important mural series The Arts of Life in America by Thomas Hart Benton, the museum relies heavily on its permanent collection for exhibitions and programming, yet also displays a significant number of borrowed shows and work by emerging artists. The singular focus on American art and its panoramic view of American artistic achievement make the New Britain Museum of American Art a significant teaching resource available to the local, regional, and national public.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 57
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/marine-discovery-center-inc.jpeg
MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER
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/new-britain-museum-of-american-art.jpeg
New Britain Museum of American 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
MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
New Britain Museum of American 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 MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for New Britain Museum of American Art in 2026.

Incident History — MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — New Britain Museum of American Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

New Britain Museum of American Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marine-discovery-center-inc.jpeg
MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/new-britain-museum-of-american-art.jpeg
New Britain Museum of American Art
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to New Britain Museum of American Art company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, New Britain Museum of American Art company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company.

In the current year, New Britain Museum of American Art company and MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art company nor MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art company nor MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art company nor MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company nor New Britain Museum of American Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER nor New Britain Museum of American Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company nor New Britain Museum of American Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

New Britain Museum of American Art company employs more people globally than MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER nor New Britain Museum of American Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER nor New Britain Museum of American Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER nor New Britain Museum of American Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER nor New Britain Museum of American Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER nor New Britain Museum of American Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither MARINE DISCOVERY CENTER nor New Britain Museum of American Art 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