Comparison Overview

McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center

VS

Archaeological Institute of America

McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center

2 Institute Dr, Concord, NH, 03301, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center is New England’s own air and space museum, dedicated to New Hampshire space pioneers Christa McAuliffe and Alan Shepard, and filled with indoor and outdoor interactive STEM exhibits, a vintage 1956 Crusader jet, an all-digital, full-dome planetarium - the largest planetarium in Northern New England, an observatory, science store, and café. With a full series of STEM programs, including summer STEM camps for kids ages 5 - 14, an annual aerospace festival each September, monthly virtual talks by scientists, engineers and educators, school field trips and a vibrant outreach program, the Discovery Center is a place to explore, discover, and be inspired.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 24
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Archaeological Institute of America

undefined, undefined, undefined, 02215, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) is North America's oldest and largest organization devoted to the world of archaeology. The AIA is a nonprofit group with some 200,000 Members belonging to 107 Local Societies. Mission: The Institute promotes a vivid and informed public interest in the cultures and civilizations of the past, supports archaeological research, fosters the sound professional practice of archaeology, advocates the preservation of the world’s archaeological heritage, and represents the discipline in the wider world.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 63
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/mcauliffe-shepard-discovery-center.jpeg
McAuliffe-Shepard 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/archaeological-institute-of-america.jpeg
Archaeological Institute of America
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
McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Archaeological Institute of America
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 McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Archaeological Institute of America in 2026.

Incident History — McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Archaeological Institute of America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Archaeological Institute of America cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mcauliffe-shepard-discovery-center.jpeg
McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/archaeological-institute-of-america.jpeg
Archaeological Institute of America
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Archaeological Institute of America company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Archaeological Institute of America company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company.

In the current year, Archaeological Institute of America company and McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Archaeological Institute of America company nor McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Archaeological Institute of America company nor McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Archaeological Institute of America company nor McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company nor Archaeological Institute of America company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center nor Archaeological Institute of America holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company nor Archaeological Institute of America company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Archaeological Institute of America company employs more people globally than McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center nor Archaeological Institute of America holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center nor Archaeological Institute of America holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center nor Archaeological Institute of America holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center nor Archaeological Institute of America holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center nor Archaeological Institute of America holds HIPAA certification.

Neither McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center nor Archaeological Institute of America 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