Comparison Overview

Museum Of Neon Art

VS

St. Petersburg Museum of History

Museum Of Neon Art

216 S Brand Blvd, Glendale, 91204, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Established in 1981, MONA illuminates the past, present, and future through permanent and rotating exhibitions of cutting-edge electric, kinetic, and light-based artworks and historic signage. MONA continues to be one of the longest artist-operated museums in the world. The museum exhibits work in its galleries in Glendale, California and showcases historic signage from the 1920s–1980s at Universal CityWalk while maintaining its archive of signage in its Pomona, California warehouse. All neon signs are created by skilled artists who bend glass over flame. MONA makes a human connection to science, history, and art, encouraging visitors to reexamine their built environment. The museum fosters dialogue and ignites the creativity of a new generation through hands-on neon classes. MONA’s team of preservationists, historians, and artists sparks curiosity through demonstrations, bus tours, and neighborhood-based walks. The museum has revived historic neon signage by assisting the relighting of over 100 significant signs across LA County and advocating for the preservation, study, and advancement of electric and kinetic art. MONA’s groundbreaking exhibitions have launched careers and inspired generations of artists.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 10
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

St. Petersburg Museum of History

335 2nd Ave NE, St Petersburg, Florida, 33701, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

For over a century, the St. Petersburg Museum of History has shared stories of the Sunshine City. Our galleries offer visitors a look at Florida's rich history with a focus on St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. From the birth of commercial aviation and spring training here in the Sunshine City to the vast accomplishments of early Pinellas Pioneers, the St. Petersburg Museum of History offers something for everyone. Come check out our two-headed calf, our 3,000-year-old Egyptian mummy, our working replica of the Benoist XIV airboat, and the world's largest collection of autographed baseballs - and learn all about St. Pete's history!

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
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-neon-art.jpeg
Museum Of Neon Art
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/st-petersburg-historical-society-inc-.jpeg
St. Petersburg Museum of History
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 Neon Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
St. Petersburg Museum of History
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 Neon Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for St. Petersburg Museum of History in 2026.

Incident History — Museum Of Neon Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Museum Of Neon Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — St. Petersburg Museum of History (X = Date, Y = Severity)

St. Petersburg Museum of History 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-neon-art.jpeg
Museum Of Neon Art
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/st-petersburg-historical-society-inc-.jpeg
St. Petersburg Museum of History
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

St. Petersburg Museum of History company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Museum Of Neon Art company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, St. Petersburg Museum of History company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Museum Of Neon Art company.

In the current year, St. Petersburg Museum of History company and Museum Of Neon Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither St. Petersburg Museum of History company nor Museum Of Neon Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither St. Petersburg Museum of History company nor Museum Of Neon Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither St. Petersburg Museum of History company nor Museum Of Neon Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art company nor St. Petersburg Museum of History company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art nor St. Petersburg Museum of History holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art company nor St. Petersburg Museum of History company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

St. Petersburg Museum of History company employs more people globally than Museum Of Neon Art company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art nor St. Petersburg Museum of History holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art nor St. Petersburg Museum of History holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art nor St. Petersburg Museum of History holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art nor St. Petersburg Museum of History holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art nor St. Petersburg Museum of History holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Museum Of Neon Art nor St. Petersburg Museum of History 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