Comparison Overview

Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens

VS

Limburgs Museum

Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens

1 Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.phipps.conservatory.org

Founded in 1893, Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens in Pittsburgh, Pa. is a green leader among public gardens with a mission to inspire and educate all with the beauty and importance of plants; to advance sustainability and promote human and environmental well-being through action and research; and to celebrate its historic glasshouse. Learn more: www.phipps.conservatory.org Connect with us: facebook.com/phippsconservatory instagram.com/phippsconservatory twitter.com/phippsnews youtube.com/user/phippsconservatory snapchat.com/add/phippsnews

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 157
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Limburgs Museum

Keulsepoort 5, Venlo, 5911 BX, NL
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799
http://www.limburgsmuseum.nl

Het Limburgs Museum is een provinciaal museum waarin de geschiedenis en cultuur centraal staan. In elf vaste presentaties maakt de bezoeker een verrassende ontdekkingstocht door de tijd: van prehistorie naar onze tijd. Het verhaal over de geschiedenis, tradities en leefstijlen wordt verteld op een aantrekkelijke manier. Leuk voor alle leeftijden!

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 56
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/phipps-conservatory.jpeg
Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
—
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/limburgs-museum.jpeg
Limburgs 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
Compliance Summary
Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Limburgs Museum
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 Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Limburgs Museum in 2026.

Incident History — Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Limburgs Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/phipps-conservatory.jpeg
Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/limburgs-museum.jpeg
Limburgs Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Limburgs Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Limburgs Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company.

In the current year, Limburgs Museum company and Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Limburgs Museum company nor Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Limburgs Museum company nor Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Limburgs Museum company nor Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company nor Limburgs Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Limburgs Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company nor Limburgs Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens company employs more people globally than Limburgs Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Limburgs Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Limburgs Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Limburgs Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Limburgs Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Limburgs Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens nor Limburgs Museum 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