Comparison Overview

Philadelphia Contemporary

VS

J. Paul Getty Trust

Philadelphia Contemporary

1112 N. Bodine St, Philadelphia, PA, 19123, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://philadelphiacontemporary.org/

Philadelphia Contemporary presents cross-disciplinary art through a dynamic model of collaboration and partnership—co-creating art, anywhere. Since 2016, we have offered a robust program of pop-up exhibitions and performances across the Philadelphia area in collaboration with various partner organizations, while working towards building a new permanent home. Philadelphia Contemporary is a non-profit 501(c)(3).

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 7
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

J. Paul Getty Trust

1200 Getty Center Dr, Los Angeles, CA, 90049, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.getty.edu

One of the largest supporters of arts in the world, the J. Paul Getty Trust is an international cultural and philanthropic institution that focuses on the visual arts in all their dimensions. Getty serves both the general public and a wide range of professional communities in Los Angeles and throughout the world. Through the work of the four Getty programs—the Museum, Research Institute, Conservation Institute, and Foundation—the Getty aims to further knowledge and nurture critical seeing through the growth and presentation of its collections and by advancing the understanding and preservation of the world's artistic heritage. The Getty pursues this mission with the conviction that cultural awareness, creativity, and aesthetic enjoyment are essential to a vital and civil society.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 963
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/philadelphiacontemporary.jpeg
Philadelphia Contemporary
—
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/j.-paul-getty-trust.jpeg
J. Paul Getty Trust
—
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
Philadelphia Contemporary
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
J. Paul Getty Trust
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 Philadelphia Contemporary in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for J. Paul Getty Trust in 2026.

Incident History — Philadelphia Contemporary (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Philadelphia Contemporary cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — J. Paul Getty Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J. Paul Getty Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/philadelphiacontemporary.jpeg
Philadelphia Contemporary
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/j.-paul-getty-trust.jpeg
J. Paul Getty Trust
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

J. Paul Getty Trust company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Philadelphia Contemporary company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, J. Paul Getty Trust company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Philadelphia Contemporary company.

In the current year, J. Paul Getty Trust company and Philadelphia Contemporary company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither J. Paul Getty Trust company nor Philadelphia Contemporary company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither J. Paul Getty Trust company nor Philadelphia Contemporary company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither J. Paul Getty Trust company nor Philadelphia Contemporary company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary company nor J. Paul Getty Trust company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary company nor J. Paul Getty Trust company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

J. Paul Getty Trust company employs more people globally than Philadelphia Contemporary company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary nor J. Paul Getty Trust holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Philadelphia Contemporary nor J. Paul Getty Trust 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