Comparison Overview

Middleton Place Foundation

VS

The Auckland Project

Middleton Place Foundation

4300 Ashley River Road, Charleston, SC, 29414, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.MiddletonPlace.org

Visit America’s oldest landscaped gardens, the Middleton Place House Museum and the Plantation Stableyards. Experience African American focus tours, nature walks, carriage tours and horseback riding. Enjoy Low Country fare for lunch and dinner in the Middleton Place Restaurant. Relax in nature and understated elegance at The Inn at Middleton Place.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 72
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

The Auckland Project

Market Place, Bishop Auckland, County Durham, DL14 7NR, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aucklandproject.org

The Auckland Project was established by Jonathan Ruffer with an ambitious vision: to transform a 900-year-old bishop’s palace from an unknown private dwelling into a world-class art, faith and heritage destination of international significance. The desire to reinvigorate the town of Bishop Auckland and the wider region through social and economic regeneration is at the heart of this plan. Within five years this project should attract over 200,000 visitors and inject £4 million per year into Bishop Auckland and the surrounding area. When this plan is realised it will give the people of County Durham new opportunities through employment, volunteering and participation, and stimulate opportunities for local enterprise. Work is already underway on several of the ground-breaking developments, both at Auckland Castle itself and around Bishop Auckland’s Market Place. This will continue over the next two years to bring the vision to life and reinvigorate the local community through art and heritage projects. Sign up to our e-newsletter here: http://bit.ly/2ehQqIU

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 79
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/middleton-place-foundation.jpeg
Middleton Place Foundation
—
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/auckland-castle.jpeg
The Auckland Project
—
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
Middleton Place Foundation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Auckland Project
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 Middleton Place Foundation in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The Auckland Project in 2026.

Incident History — Middleton Place Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Middleton Place Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Auckland Project (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Auckland Project cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/middleton-place-foundation.jpeg
Middleton Place Foundation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/auckland-castle.jpeg
The Auckland Project
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Middleton Place Foundation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Auckland Project company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Auckland Project company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Middleton Place Foundation company.

In the current year, The Auckland Project company and Middleton Place Foundation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Auckland Project company nor Middleton Place Foundation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Auckland Project company nor Middleton Place Foundation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Auckland Project company nor Middleton Place Foundation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation company nor The Auckland Project company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation nor The Auckland Project holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation company nor The Auckland Project company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Auckland Project company employs more people globally than Middleton Place Foundation company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation nor The Auckland Project holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation nor The Auckland Project holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation nor The Auckland Project holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation nor The Auckland Project holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation nor The Auckland Project holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Middleton Place Foundation nor The Auckland Project 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