Comparison Overview

miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science

VS

Mid-Continent Railway Museum

miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science

15 Nott Terrace Heights, Schenectady, New York, US, 12308
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

miSci is Tech Valley's leading science museum, providing multi-media hands-on STEM learning to visitors of all ages. Located in New York’s Capital Region, miSci is mission-driven to celebrate and explore science and technology, past, present and future. The museum explores the area's rich technological heritage, through an internationally-recognized archive and collection related to the regional and global history of innovation, the region's finest interactive STEM exhibits, a Challenger Learning Center, the Dudley Observatory, the Suits-Bueche Planetarium, dynamic standards-based education programs and outreaches, and soon the Vale Park Conservancy Trail. Operating without public funding, miSci engages patrons, donors and strong community partnerships to deliver dynamic "edutainment"​ that fosters public understanding of scientific subjects, promotes STEM careers, and encourages scientifically-informed citizenship.

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

Mid-Continent Railway Museum

E8948 Museum Rd., North Freedom, WI, 53951, US
Last Update: 2026-01-13
Between 750 and 799

Mid-Continent Railway Historical Society–also known as Mid-Continent Railway Museum–is an outdoor, living museum and operating railroad recreating the small town/short line way of life during the “Golden Age of Railroading,” with operating trains, educational exhibits, and displays of restored rolling stock. Mid-Continent has operated at North Freedom, Wisconsin since 1963.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 8
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/misci-museum-of-innovation-and-science-.jpeg
miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science
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/mid-continent-railway-museum.jpeg
Mid-Continent Railway 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
Compliance Summary
miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mid-Continent Railway Museum
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 miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Mid-Continent Railway Museum in 2026.

Incident History — miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science (X = Date, Y = Severity)

miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mid-Continent Railway Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mid-Continent Railway Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/misci-museum-of-innovation-and-science-.jpeg
miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mid-continent-railway-museum.jpeg
Mid-Continent Railway Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mid-Continent Railway Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Mid-Continent Railway Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company.

In the current year, Mid-Continent Railway Museum company and miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mid-Continent Railway Museum company nor miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mid-Continent Railway Museum company nor miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Mid-Continent Railway Museum company nor miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science company employs more people globally than Mid-Continent Railway Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither miSci | Museum of Innovation and Science nor Mid-Continent Railway Museum 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