Comparison Overview

Museums of Old York

VS

Cultural Innovations

Museums of Old York

3 Lindsay Road, York, ME, 03909, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.oldyork.org

The Museums of Old York is the product of a merger of three historical organizations founded in York with histories dating back more than a hundred years. The Mission of the Museums of Old York is to preserve and promote the rich history of the York region through programs and educational experiences that enhance historical perspective and build on community pride. We have 8 different buildings highlighting various aspects of York life, decorative arts, contemporary art, and social history located throughout York Village.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Cultural Innovations

1-2 Hatfields, London, undefined, SE1 9PG, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.culturalinnovations.com

We are a multi-disciplinary team of designers, museum professionals, strategists and creative thinkers. Based in London, we work with museums, visitor attractions, science centres and heritage sites across the globe, helping them to find the right solutions for their locations and audiences. Our services start at the very outset of a project when we work with our clients to examine market context and feasibility, define objectives, analyse audiences and plan the experiences we would like them to have. Our interpretation and design teams create visitor experiences that are powerful, entertaining, thought-provoking and memorable. From initial concept through detailed design to visitor operations, we work on all project phases to ensure the final outcome is as extraordinary as it can be. Over the past 16 years we have worked in more than 30 countries, producing world-class results for our clients and their audiences. In achieving this, we are committed to creative collaboration, knowledge-sharing and understanding local contexts.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 22
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/museums-of-old-york.jpeg
Museums of Old York
—
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/cultural-innovations.jpeg
Cultural Innovations
—
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
Museums of Old York
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cultural Innovations
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 Museums of Old York in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Cultural Innovations in 2026.

Incident History — Museums of Old York (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Museums of Old York cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Cultural Innovations cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/museums-of-old-york.jpeg
Museums of Old York
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cultural-innovations.jpeg
Cultural Innovations
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Museums of Old York company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cultural Innovations company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Cultural Innovations company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Museums of Old York company.

In the current year, Cultural Innovations company and Museums of Old York company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cultural Innovations company nor Museums of Old York company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cultural Innovations company nor Museums of Old York company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cultural Innovations company nor Museums of Old York company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Museums of Old York company nor Cultural Innovations company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Museums of Old York nor Cultural Innovations holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Museums of Old York company nor Cultural Innovations company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Cultural Innovations company employs more people globally than Museums of Old York company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Museums of Old York nor Cultural Innovations holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Museums of Old York nor Cultural Innovations holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Museums of Old York nor Cultural Innovations holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Museums of Old York nor Cultural Innovations holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Museums of Old York nor Cultural Innovations holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Museums of Old York nor Cultural Innovations 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