Comparison Overview

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

VS

Skirball Cultural Center

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

465 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mfa.org

The MFA is open. Open to new ideas that broaden our perspectives. Open to every visitor, from the curious to the lifelong learner. Open to new possibilities discovered through art. Showcasing ancient artistry and modern masterpieces, local legends and global visionaries, our renowned collection of nearly 500,000 works tells the story of the human experience—a story that holds unique meaning for everyone. We welcome diverse perspectives, both within the artwork and among our visitors. Where many worldviews meet, new ways of seeing, thinking, and understanding emerge. The conversations we inspire bring people together—revealing connections, exploring differences, and creating a community where all belong.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 958
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Skirball Cultural Center

2701 N. Sepulveda Dr., Los Angeles, CA, US, 90049
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.skirball.org

The Skirball Cultural Center is a place of meeting guided by the Jewish tradition of welcoming the stranger and inspired by the American democratic ideals of freedom and equality. The Skirball welcomes people of all communities and generations to participate in cultural experiences that celebrate discovery and hope, foster human connections, and call upon us to help build a more just society.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 205
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/museum-of-fine-arts-boston.jpeg
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
—
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/skirball-cultural-center.jpeg
Skirball Cultural 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
Compliance Summary
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Skirball Cultural Center
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 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Skirball Cultural Center in 2026.

Incident History — Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Skirball Cultural Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Skirball Cultural Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/museum-of-fine-arts-boston.jpeg
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/skirball-cultural-center.jpeg
Skirball Cultural Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Skirball Cultural Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Skirball Cultural Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company.

In the current year, Skirball Cultural Center company and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Skirball Cultural Center company nor Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Skirball Cultural Center company nor Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Skirball Cultural Center company nor Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company nor Skirball Cultural Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Skirball Cultural Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company nor Skirball Cultural Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston company employs more people globally than Skirball Cultural Center company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Skirball Cultural Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Skirball Cultural Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Skirball Cultural Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Skirball Cultural Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Skirball Cultural Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Skirball Cultural Center 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