Comparison Overview

The Alamo

VS

National Gallery in Prague

The Alamo

300 Alamo Plaza, San Antonio, Texas, US, 78209
Last Update: 2026-01-19
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.thealamo.org

Located in the heart of San Antonio, the Alamo stands as the Shrine of Texas Liberty. More than 1.6 million visitors travel to the site each year, making it the #1 most visited destination in the State of Texas. The 300-year history of the Alamo is world-renowned and represents the core of Texas’ identity today. In 1960, the Alamo was designated a United States National Historic Landmark, and in 2015, it became part of the Lone Star State's only UNESCO World Heritage Site. Witness living history, experience authentic artifacts, and explore an iconic landmark that shaped the country. Visit theAlamo.org.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 118
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

National Gallery in Prague

Kinsky Palace,, Staromestske nam. 12, Prague 1, CZ, CZ, 11015
Last Update: 2026-01-18
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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/officialalamo.jpeg
The Alamo
—
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/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
Compliance Summary
The Alamo
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
National Gallery in Prague
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 The Alamo in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for National Gallery in Prague in 2026.

Incident History — The Alamo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Alamo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/officialalamo.jpeg
The Alamo
Incidents

No Incident

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

FAQ

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

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

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

Neither National Gallery in Prague company nor The Alamo company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither National Gallery in Prague company nor The Alamo company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither National Gallery in Prague company nor The Alamo company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Alamo company nor National Gallery in Prague company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Alamo nor National Gallery in Prague holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

Neither The Alamo nor National Gallery in Prague holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Alamo nor National Gallery in Prague holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Alamo nor National Gallery in Prague holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Alamo nor National Gallery in Prague holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Alamo nor National Gallery in Prague holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Alamo nor National Gallery in Prague 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