Comparison Overview

National Gallery in Prague

VS

Roycroft Campus

National Gallery in Prague

Kinsky Palace,, Staromestske nam. 12, Prague 1, CZ, CZ, 11015
Last Update: 2026-01-18
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ngprague.cz

The National gallery in Prague is the oldest cultural institution in the Czech Republic and its history goes back to 1796. The National Gallery in Prague has been perceived as one of the attributes of Czech statehood for more than two centuries. The National Gallery in Prague manages the most important and prestigious collection of artworks in the Czech Republic. There are more than 400 000 objects of art in the collection - paintings, graphic sheets, drawings and sculptures. The artworks represent all the eras of art - from 1st century AD to very contemporary art, including significant and globally recognized collections of the Old Masters and the French Modern Art.

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
View Profile

Roycroft Campus

31 South Grove St., East Aurora, 14052, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.roycroftcampuscorporation.com/index.php

The Roycroft Campus Corporation (RCC) is a not for profit 501(c)3 organization dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the Roycroft Campus, a National Historic Landmark in East Aurora, New York. From 1895 to 1938, the Roycroft Campus was one of the most successful and well-known components of the Arts & Crafts Movement in the United States, consisting of a community of over 500 artisans and craftspeople led by writer and charismatic leader, Elbert Hubbard. In addition to preserving the Roycroft Campus, the RCC’s mission is to inspire visitors to experience the history, ideals, and possibilities of the Head, Heart, Hand philosophy and the art it creates.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 16
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/national-gallery-in-prague.jpeg
National Gallery in Prague
—
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/roycroftcampus.jpeg
Roycroft Campus
—
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
National Gallery in Prague
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Roycroft Campus
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 National Gallery in Prague in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Roycroft Campus in 2026.

Incident History — National Gallery in Prague (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Gallery in Prague cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Roycroft Campus (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Roycroft Campus cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/national-gallery-in-prague.jpeg
National Gallery in Prague
Incidents
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/roycroftcampus.jpeg
Roycroft Campus
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Roycroft Campus company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to National Gallery in Prague company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Roycroft Campus company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to National Gallery in Prague company.

In the current year, Roycroft Campus company and National Gallery in Prague company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Roycroft Campus company nor National Gallery in Prague company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Roycroft Campus company nor National Gallery in Prague company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Roycroft Campus company nor National Gallery in Prague company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither National Gallery in Prague company nor Roycroft Campus company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither National Gallery in Prague nor Roycroft Campus holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither National Gallery in Prague company nor Roycroft Campus company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Roycroft Campus company employs more people globally than National Gallery in Prague company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither National Gallery in Prague nor Roycroft Campus holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither National Gallery in Prague nor Roycroft Campus holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither National Gallery in Prague nor Roycroft Campus holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither National Gallery in Prague nor Roycroft Campus holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither National Gallery in Prague nor Roycroft Campus holds HIPAA certification.

Neither National Gallery in Prague nor Roycroft Campus 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