Comparison Overview

New Britain Museum of American Art

VS

Vagina Museum

New Britain Museum of American Art

56 Lexington Street, New Britain, CT, 06052, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The New Britain Museum of American Art’s founding in 1903 entitles the institution to be designated the first museum of strictly American art in the country. That year, a $20,000 gift of gold bonds to the museum’s former parent, the New Britain Institute, from industrialist John Butler Talcott, created funds to purchase ”modern oil paintings.” Subsequent purchases, with advice from New York museums and galleries, further defined ”modern” to mean American works of art, now numbering more than 8,300. With particular strengths in colonial portraiture, the Hudson River School, American Impressionism, and the Ash Can School, not to mention the important mural series The Arts of Life in America by Thomas Hart Benton, the museum relies heavily on its permanent collection for exhibitions and programming, yet also displays a significant number of borrowed shows and work by emerging artists. The singular focus on American art and its panoramic view of American artistic achievement make the New Britain Museum of American Art a significant teaching resource available to the local, regional, and national public.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 57
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Vagina Museum

18 Victoria Park Square, London, England, E2 9PF, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Vagina Museum is the project to make the world’s first bricks and mortar museum about the vagina and the gynaecological anatomy. It will take a holistic view of the gynaecological anatomy and there will be four permanent galleries: science, culture, society and history. There will also be a temporary exhibition space and a packed programme of events. The Museum will have an extensive outreach programme and a policy department. Oh, and a cafe with vulva cupcakes of course. The first step on the Vagina Museum journey is a pop up museum which will travel around the country. The Museum will then graduate to an interim space in a semi-permanent location as a proof of concept for the final permanent home for the Vagina Museum in the UK. For more information on the Vagina Museum, please visit: www.vaginamuseum.co.uk https://twitter.com/vagina_museum https://www.instagram.com/vagina_museum https://www.facebook.com/vmuseum/

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 57
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/new-britain-museum-of-american-art.jpeg
New Britain Museum of American 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/vmuseum.jpeg
Vagina Museum
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
New Britain Museum of American Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Vagina Museum
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 New Britain Museum of American Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Vagina Museum in 2026.

Incident History — New Britain Museum of American Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

New Britain Museum of American Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Vagina Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vagina Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/new-britain-museum-of-american-art.jpeg
New Britain Museum of American Art
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vmuseum.jpeg
Vagina Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

New Britain Museum of American Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Vagina Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Vagina Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to New Britain Museum of American Art company.

In the current year, Vagina Museum company and New Britain Museum of American Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Vagina Museum company nor New Britain Museum of American Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Vagina Museum company nor New Britain Museum of American Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Vagina Museum company nor New Britain Museum of American Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art company nor Vagina Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art nor Vagina Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art company nor Vagina Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Both New Britain Museum of American Art company and Vagina Museum company employ a similar number of people globally.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art nor Vagina Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art nor Vagina Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art nor Vagina Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art nor Vagina Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art nor Vagina Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither New Britain Museum of American Art nor Vagina Museum 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