Comparison Overview

Minnesota Children's Museum

VS

Historic Hope Plantation

Minnesota Children's Museum

10 West 7th Street, St. Paul, 55102, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Minnesota Children’s Museum is dedicated to sparking children’s learning through play. Our vision: “Kids play more. Adults do, too. All families thrive in a happier, healthier and more innovative community through the radiant power of play.” The museum, which celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2021, has provided playful learning experiences to more than 12 million visitors. The museum's downtown St. Paul location features three floors of fun and 11 interactive exhibits. Minnesota Children's Museum is consistently rated as one of the top children’s museums in the country by national media outlets such as Forbes and Parents and was named as a finalist for an Institute of Museum and Library Services Medal of Service, the nation’s highest honor conferred on museums and libraries. As the nation’s leading developer of traveling children’s museum exhibits, the museum is a trailblazer in creating immersive learning environments, reaching more than 10 million children and adults in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Visit www.mcm.org for more information.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 133
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Historic Hope Plantation

132 Hope House Ln, Windsor, North Carolina, 27983, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Restored home of former North Carolina Governor David Stone (1770-1818). Located four miles west of Windsor, NC, the plantation complex offers unique insights to the late 18th and 19th century rural life in Eastern North Carolina and the South. The centerpiece of the plantation is the c. 1803 Hope Mansion.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 3
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/minnesota-childrens-museum.jpeg
Minnesota Children's 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/historic-hope-plantation.jpeg
Historic Hope Plantation
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
Minnesota Children's Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Historic Hope Plantation
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 Minnesota Children's Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historic Hope Plantation in 2026.

Incident History — Minnesota Children's Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Minnesota Children's Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Historic Hope Plantation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Historic Hope Plantation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/minnesota-childrens-museum.jpeg
Minnesota Children's Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/historic-hope-plantation.jpeg
Historic Hope Plantation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Historic Hope Plantation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Minnesota Children's Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Historic Hope Plantation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Minnesota Children's Museum company.

In the current year, Historic Hope Plantation company and Minnesota Children's Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation company nor Minnesota Children's Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation company nor Minnesota Children's Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historic Hope Plantation company nor Minnesota Children's Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum company nor Historic Hope Plantation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum nor Historic Hope Plantation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Minnesota Children's Museum company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Historic Hope Plantation company.

Minnesota Children's Museum company employs more people globally than Historic Hope Plantation company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum nor Historic Hope Plantation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum nor Historic Hope Plantation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum nor Historic Hope Plantation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum nor Historic Hope Plantation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum nor Historic Hope Plantation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Minnesota Children's Museum nor Historic Hope Plantation 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.

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
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

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
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

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
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.

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
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.

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