Comparison Overview

National Museum of Dance

VS

Roycroft Campus

National Museum of Dance

99 South Broadway, Saratoga Springs, 12866, US
Last Update: 2025-12-03
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dancemuseum.org

The Mission of the NMD is to cultivate, promote, foster and develop amongst its members and the community at large, the appreciation, understanding, taste and love of dance and its history, and to provide the means for popular instruction and enjoyment thereof; to collect, classify, preserve and protect records, articles and subjects of historic interest; to select, annually, one or more individuals, corporations, dance companies, associations or other institutions as honorees to be named in the National Museum of Dance Hall of Fame. The Museum is an all-inclusive institution, related to a diversity of professional dance forms, and representing dance from a diversity of cultural, religious, gender, and class segments/backgrounds of society.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 11
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: 2025-12-02
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-museum-of-dance.jpeg
National Museum of Dance
—
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 Museum of Dance
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 Museum of Dance in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Roycroft Campus in 2025.

Incident History — National Museum of Dance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Museum of Dance 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-museum-of-dance.jpeg
National Museum of Dance
Incidents

No Incident

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 Museum of Dance 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 Museum of Dance company.

In the current year, Roycroft Campus company and National Museum of Dance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Roycroft Campus company nor National Museum of Dance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Roycroft Campus company nor National Museum of Dance company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Roycroft Campus company nor National Museum of Dance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither National Museum of Dance company nor Roycroft Campus company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither National Museum of Dance nor Roycroft Campus holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither National Museum of Dance 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 Museum of Dance company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither National Museum of Dance nor Roycroft Campus holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither National Museum of Dance nor Roycroft Campus holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither National Museum of Dance nor Roycroft Campus holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither National Museum of Dance nor Roycroft Campus holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither National Museum of Dance nor Roycroft Campus holds HIPAA certification.

Neither National Museum of Dance nor Roycroft Campus holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34, there is a vulnerability in ImageMagick’s Magick++ layer that manifests when Options::fontFamily is invoked with an empty string. Clearing a font family calls RelinquishMagickMemory on _drawInfo->font, freeing the font string but leaving _drawInfo->font pointing to freed memory while _drawInfo->family is set to that (now-invalid) pointer. Any later cleanup or reuse of _drawInfo->font re-frees or dereferences dangling memory. DestroyDrawInfo and other setters (Options::font, Image::font) assume _drawInfo->font remains valid, so destruction or subsequent updates trigger crashes or heap corruption. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
References
Description

FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 has a Remote Code Execution via Unrestricted File Upload in Ad Management. FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 allows authenticated remote attackers to upload files that the server later executes (or stores in an executable location) without sufficient validation, sanitization, or execution restrictions. An authenticated remote attacker can upload a crafted PHP file and cause the application or web server to execute it, resulting in remote code execution (RCE).

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

PHPGurukul Billing System 1.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the admin/index.php endpoint. Specifically, the username parameter accepts unvalidated user input, which is then concatenated directly into a backend SQL query.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

NMIS/BioDose software V22.02 and previous versions contain executable binaries with plain text hard-coded passwords. These hard-coded passwords could allow unauthorized access to both the application and database.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
cvss4
Base: 8.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

NMIS/BioDose V22.02 and previous versions' installation directory paths by default have insecure file permissions, which in certain deployment scenarios can enable users on client workstations to modify the program executables and libraries.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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