Comparison Overview

Portland Art Museum

VS

Face to Face Germantown

Portland Art Museum

1219 SW Park Avenue, Portland, 97205, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Founded in late 1892, the Portland Art Museum is the seventh oldest museum in the United States and the oldest in the Pacific Northwest. The Museum is internationally recognized for its permanent collection and ambitious special exhibitions, drawn from the Museum’s holdings and the world’s finest public and private collections. The Museum’s collection of more than 42,000 objects, displayed in 112,000 square feet of galleries, reflects the history of art from ancient times to today. The collection is distinguished for its holdings of art of the native peoples of North America, English silver, and the graphic arts. An active collecting institution dedicated to preserving great art for the enrichment of future generations, the Museum devotes 90 percent of its gallery space to its permanent collection.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 212
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Face to Face Germantown

109 E Price Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19144, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

At Face to Face struggling families, individuals and the homeless are welcomed and treated with dignity and respect. Our goal is to meet basic human needs and reduce suffering; thereby assisting our guests to a better future. Face to Face offers a Dining Room, a nurse managed Health Center, a Legal Center, a Social Services Center and Children’s Summer Camps and After School programs. We also have a Washeteria where people can take a hot shower and receive a new set of clothes. Face to Face serves 2,500 annually and has been a stable presence in Germantown for over 20 years. We are distinguished both by what we do and the manner in which we do it. Face to Face believes that each guest is the equal of each staff member and volunteer.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 27
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/portland-art-museum.jpeg
Portland Art 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/face-2-face-germantown.jpeg
Face to Face Germantown
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
Portland Art Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Face to Face Germantown
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 Portland Art Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Face to Face Germantown in 2026.

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

Portland Art Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Face to Face Germantown (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Face to Face Germantown cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/portland-art-museum.jpeg
Portland Art Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/face-2-face-germantown.jpeg
Face to Face Germantown
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Face to Face Germantown company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Portland Art Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Face to Face Germantown company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Portland Art Museum company.

In the current year, Face to Face Germantown company and Portland Art Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Face to Face Germantown company nor Portland Art Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Face to Face Germantown company nor Portland Art Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Face to Face Germantown company nor Portland Art Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Portland Art Museum company nor Face to Face Germantown company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Portland Art Museum nor Face to Face Germantown holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Portland Art Museum company nor Face to Face Germantown company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Portland Art Museum company employs more people globally than Face to Face Germantown company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Portland Art Museum nor Face to Face Germantown holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Portland Art Museum nor Face to Face Germantown holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Portland Art Museum nor Face to Face Germantown holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Portland Art Museum nor Face to Face Germantown holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Portland Art Museum nor Face to Face Germantown holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Portland Art Museum nor Face to Face Germantown 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.

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
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

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
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

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
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.

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
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.

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