Comparison Overview

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

VS

Woodmere

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

465 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

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

Woodmere

9201 Germantown Ave, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19118, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Housed in a 19th-century stone mansion on six acres in Chestnut Hill, Woodmere Art Museum is dedicated to the art and artists of Philadelphia. The building and grounds, together with the core of the collection, are the gifts of Charles Knox Smith (1845 – 1916), who purchased the estate in 1898 with the intent of transforming it into a showcase for his great collection of art. Born of modest means, his life story represents the American dream. A passionate collector of contemporary art in his day, Smith was a civic leader of stature, serving on Philadelphia’s Common Council (the precursor to today’s City Council). He lived in various parts of urban Philadelphia most of his life and purchased the Woodmere estate with the grand ambition to provide spiritual encounters with art in the context of nature’s beauty. Smith opened Woodmere’s doors to the public in 1910. Today, Woodmere continues to honor Smith’s vision to bring art and nature together and in recent years has acquired important examples of outdoor sculpture by Harry Bertoia and Dina Wind. Woodmere’s collection consists of more than 6,000 works of art, and nine galleries offer exhibitions and programs that serve adults and children.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 45
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/woodmere-art-museum-inc.jpeg
Woodmere
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
Woodmere
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 Woodmere 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 — Woodmere (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Woodmere 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/woodmere-art-museum-inc.jpeg
Woodmere
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Woodmere holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Woodmere holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Woodmere holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Woodmere holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Woodmere holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Woodmere holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Museum of Fine Arts, Boston nor Woodmere 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