Comparison Overview

PAV

VS

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art

PAV

US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.parcoartevivente.it

A museum of contemporary art especially dedicated to the living art, exploring the relation between at and nature, art and science, in a truely ecological sense. PAV is a little, eco-sustainable museum with exposition rooms and a laboratory, encircled by green park enriched by permanent and temporary artworks (from landart to landscaping). The PAV art program and the educational work are closely related, involving artistic research, collective activities, publishing, and so on.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 75
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art

4525 Oak St, Kansas City, MO, 64111, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nelson-atkins.org/

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art invites all people to explore the art in its care, and through its vast collections, the depths and complexities of human experiences. We strive to create a sense of belonging, where staff and volunteers can do meaningful work connecting people to art. We create an informed, invested group of staff and volunteers through shared values and open, direct and respectful communication. We embrace IDEAS (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access and Sustainability) in every aspect of our ideals and aspirations, as we believe these values to be paramount to success. Each staff member and volunteer embodies the institution’s commitments and agrees to exhibit behaviors that align with them. We hold one another to these expectations so that, together, we may know, own, energize and sustain our culture and the institution for generations to come.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 346
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/defaultcompany.jpeg
PAV
—
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-nelson-atkins-museum-of-art.jpeg
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of 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
Compliance Summary
PAV
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
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 PAV in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in 2026.

Incident History — PAV (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PAV cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
PAV
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-nelson-atkins-museum-of-art.jpeg
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

PAV company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to PAV company.

In the current year, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company and PAV company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company nor PAV company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company nor PAV company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company nor PAV company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither PAV company nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither PAV nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither PAV company nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company employs more people globally than PAV company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither PAV nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither PAV nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither PAV nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither PAV nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither PAV nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither PAV nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 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