Comparison Overview

Old Dillard Museum

VS

The Franklin Institute

Old Dillard Museum

None
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/olddillardmuseum/

The Old Dillard Museum occupies a prominent place in the history of Fort Lauderdale. Formerly called “the colored school," the building is one of Ft. Lauderdale’s first local historic landmarks, as well as the first school constructed for people of color in this area. Since its construction, this landmark has served as an important educational and cultural center for Ft. Lauderdale’s African‐American community. Regarded by all as one of Broward County’s most significant links to the past, this historically distinctive structure has been restored to serve the community as a museum and cultural/educational center.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 81
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

The Franklin Institute

222 North 20th Street, None, Philadelphia, PA, US, 19103
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://fi.edu/join-our-email-list

Founded in 1824, The Franklin Institute is a national leader in science education in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the spirit of inquiry and discovery embodied by Benjamin Franklin, TFI's mission is to inspire a passion for learning about science and technology through hands-on exhibits, including Your Brain, Franklin Air Show, SportsZone, Sir Isaac's Loft, Amazing Machine, Wondrous Space, Body Odyssey, and Hamilton Collections Gallery. The Franklin Institute is also home to the Fels Planetarium, the Holt & Miller Observatory, and the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. For over 200 years, TFI has honored excellence in scientific achievement through its annual Franklin Institute Awards Program.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 273
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/old-dillard-museum.jpeg
Old Dillard 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-franklin-institute.jpeg
The Franklin Institute
—
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
Old Dillard Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Franklin Institute
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 Old Dillard Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The Franklin Institute in 2026.

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

Old Dillard Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

The Franklin Institute cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/old-dillard-museum.jpeg
Old Dillard Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-franklin-institute.jpeg
The Franklin Institute
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Old Dillard Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Franklin Institute company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Franklin Institute company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Old Dillard Museum company.

In the current year, The Franklin Institute company and Old Dillard Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Franklin Institute company nor Old Dillard Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Franklin Institute company nor Old Dillard Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Franklin Institute company nor Old Dillard Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Old Dillard Museum company nor The Franklin Institute company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Old Dillard Museum nor The Franklin Institute holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Old Dillard Museum company nor The Franklin Institute company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Franklin Institute company employs more people globally than Old Dillard Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Old Dillard Museum nor The Franklin Institute holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Old Dillard Museum nor The Franklin Institute holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Old Dillard Museum nor The Franklin Institute holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Old Dillard Museum nor The Franklin Institute holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Old Dillard Museum nor The Franklin Institute holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Old Dillard Museum nor The Franklin Institute 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