Comparison Overview

Mingei International Museum

VS

Four Mile Historic Park

Mingei International Museum

1439 El Prado, San Diego, California, US, 92101-1617
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Mingei International Museum preserves and exhibits folk art, craft and design from all eras and cultures of the world. Mingei celebrates human creativity, and the belief that everyday object and materials that often serve a useful purpose can also be objects of beauty. Art can happen anywhere—in any culture, in any place, created by any person. The Museum’s collection now comprises more than 25,000 objects of folk art, craft and design from 141 countries. A non-profit institution funded by admission, individuals, and community support, the Museum offers inspiring exhibitions and diverse educational programs.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 64
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Four Mile Historic Park

715 S. FOREST ST, DENVER, Colorado, 80246, US
Last Update: 2026-01-13
Between 750 and 799

On the banks of Cherry Creek, just four miles from downtown Denver, Four Mile Historic Park is a 12-acre oasis featuring Denver's oldest standing structure, pioneer exhibits, special events for all ages, and guided tours that transport visitors to Colorado's frontier past. Once a wayside inn and stage stop, Four Mile House and grounds are the setting for unique family, student, senior and rental activities that offer visitors a unique experience apart from the bustle of their busy lives.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 19
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/mingei-international-museum.jpeg
Mingei International Museum
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/four-mile-historic-park.jpeg
Four Mile Historic Park
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
Mingei International Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Four Mile Historic Park
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 Mingei International Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Four Mile Historic Park in 2026.

Incident History — Mingei International Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mingei International Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Four Mile Historic Park (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Four Mile Historic Park cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mingei-international-museum.jpeg
Mingei International Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/four-mile-historic-park.jpeg
Four Mile Historic Park
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Mingei International Museum company and Four Mile Historic Park company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Four Mile Historic Park company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Mingei International Museum company.

In the current year, Four Mile Historic Park company and Mingei International Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Four Mile Historic Park company nor Mingei International Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Four Mile Historic Park company nor Mingei International Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Four Mile Historic Park company nor Mingei International Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mingei International Museum company nor Four Mile Historic Park company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mingei International Museum nor Four Mile Historic Park holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Mingei International Museum company nor Four Mile Historic Park company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Mingei International Museum company employs more people globally than Four Mile Historic Park company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Mingei International Museum nor Four Mile Historic Park holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mingei International Museum nor Four Mile Historic Park holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mingei International Museum nor Four Mile Historic Park holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mingei International Museum nor Four Mile Historic Park holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mingei International Museum nor Four Mile Historic Park holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mingei International Museum nor Four Mile Historic Park 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