Comparison Overview

Masur Museum Of Art

VS

Historic Huguenot Street

Masur Museum Of Art

1400 S Grand St, Monroe, Louisiana 71202-2012, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.masurmuseum.org

The Masur Museum Of Art is a fine art museum located at 1400 S Grand St, Monroe, Louisiana, United States. The Masur exists through a partnership between the City of Monroe and the Twin City Art Foundation. The mission of the Masur Museum of Art is to provide a quality visual arts experience through temporary exhibitions, educational activities and programs, and collections management, for the citizens of Monroe and the community of Northeast Louisiana. As the largest visual arts museum in Northeast Louisiana, the Masur Museum of Art strives to support and foster visual arts in the cultural and educational life of the community.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 7
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Historic Huguenot Street

88 Huguenot Street, New Paltz, New York, 12561, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.huguenotstreet.org

Historic Huguenot Street is a museum, educational institution, and National Historic Landmark District located in New Paltz, New York. In the late 17th century, 12 families--whose descendants remain an important part of the institution today--established a vibrant community on the banks of the Wallkill River to maintain their faith and protect their cultural heritage. Historic Huguenot Street collects and preserves their buildings, landscape, and objects to keep their history alive, promote a deeper understanding and enjoyment of Hudson Valley life, and build appreciation for its preservation.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 25
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/masur-museum-of-art.jpeg
Masur 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-huguenot-street.jpeg
Historic Huguenot Street
—
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
Masur Museum Of Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Historic Huguenot Street
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 Masur Museum Of Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historic Huguenot Street in 2026.

Incident History — Masur Museum Of Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Masur Museum Of Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Historic Huguenot Street (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Historic Huguenot Street cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/masur-museum-of-art.jpeg
Masur Museum Of Art
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-huguenot-street.jpeg
Historic Huguenot Street
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Masur Museum Of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Historic Huguenot Street company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Historic Huguenot Street company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Masur Museum Of Art company.

In the current year, Historic Huguenot Street company and Masur Museum Of Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historic Huguenot Street company nor Masur Museum Of Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historic Huguenot Street company nor Masur Museum Of Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historic Huguenot Street company nor Masur Museum Of Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art company nor Historic Huguenot Street company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art nor Historic Huguenot Street holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art company nor Historic Huguenot Street company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Historic Huguenot Street company employs more people globally than Masur Museum Of Art company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art nor Historic Huguenot Street holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art nor Historic Huguenot Street holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art nor Historic Huguenot Street holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art nor Historic Huguenot Street holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art nor Historic Huguenot Street holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Masur Museum Of Art nor Historic Huguenot Street 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