Comparison Overview

Orange County Regional History Center

VS

Muzeum Podlaskie

Orange County Regional History Center

65 E. Central Blvd., Orlando, Florida, 32801, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Mission: To serve as a gateway for community engagement, education, and inspiration by preserving and sharing Central Florida's continually unfolding story. The Orange County Regional History Center, a Smithsonian Institution affiliate and American Alliance of Museums member, is one of the state’s preeminent cultural institutions. The History Center includes a history museum in a renovated 1927 courthouse, the collection of the Historical Society of Central Florida, the Joseph L. Brechner Research Library, the Emporium Museum Store, and Heritage Square park. The museum has advanced its global mission to honor the past, explore the present, and shape the future through wide-ranging programs, permanent and traveling exhibits, and limited-run exhibitions from other prestigious institutions.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 45
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Muzeum Podlaskie

Rynek Kościuszki, 10, Białystok, Podlaskie, PL, 15 - 426
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Misją Muzeum jest budowanie tożsamości regionalnej poprzez rozwój i ochronę dziedzictwa kulturowego, dlatego jej głównym mottem jest: „Dziedzictwo kulturowe – ciągłość tradycji i bogactwo regionu”. Ambicją muzeum jest również kreowanie i utrwalanie polskości w tożsamości europejskiej oraz promocja wewnętrzna i zewnętrzna dorobku kulturowego województwa podlaskiego. Misja muzeum realizowana jest poprzez działalność, której główne osie stanowią: - gromadzenie zabytków/muzealiów i materiałów dokumentacyjnych; - organizacja i prowadzenie badań, ekspedycji naukowych oraz prac wykopaliskowych; - organizacja wystaw stałych i czasowych; - prowadzenie działalności oświatowej, np. lekcji muzealnych; - udostępnianie zbiorów dla celów naukowych i oświatowych; - publikacja i rozpowszechnianie katalogów, przewodników wystaw, wyników badań, wykopalisk i ekspedycji oraz wydawnictw popularnonaukowych z zakresu swojej działalności;

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 18
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/orange-county-regional-history-center.jpeg
Orange County Regional History Center
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/muzeum-podlaskie.jpeg
Muzeum Podlaskie
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
Orange County Regional History Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Muzeum Podlaskie
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 Orange County Regional History Center in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Muzeum Podlaskie in 2026.

Incident History — Orange County Regional History Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Orange County Regional History Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Muzeum Podlaskie (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Muzeum Podlaskie cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/orange-county-regional-history-center.jpeg
Orange County Regional History Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/muzeum-podlaskie.jpeg
Muzeum Podlaskie
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Muzeum Podlaskie company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Orange County Regional History Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Muzeum Podlaskie company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Orange County Regional History Center company.

In the current year, Muzeum Podlaskie company and Orange County Regional History Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Muzeum Podlaskie company nor Orange County Regional History Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Muzeum Podlaskie company nor Orange County Regional History Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Muzeum Podlaskie company nor Orange County Regional History Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center company nor Muzeum Podlaskie company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center nor Muzeum Podlaskie holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center company nor Muzeum Podlaskie company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Orange County Regional History Center company employs more people globally than Muzeum Podlaskie company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center nor Muzeum Podlaskie holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center nor Muzeum Podlaskie holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center nor Muzeum Podlaskie holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center nor Muzeum Podlaskie holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center nor Muzeum Podlaskie holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Orange County Regional History Center nor Muzeum Podlaskie 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