Comparison Overview

Reeves-Reed Arboretum

VS

Historical Society of Princeton

Reeves-Reed Arboretum

165 Hobart Ave, Summit, New Jersey, US, 07901
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Reeves-Reed Arboretum is a non-profit 13.5 acre public garden in Summit, NJ and is listed on both the National and State Registers of historic places. Our grounds are open to the public 365 days a year, free of charge. Our landscapes include natural woodlands, open vistas that owe much to 19th century visionaries like Andrew Downing and Frederick Law Olmsted , and more formal gardens that exemplify the Country Place movement of the early 20th century. The Arboretum offers classes, workshops and camps in horticulture, sustainability, environmental education and the arts, and as well provides a quiet place for reflection. The Arboretum hosts events throughout the year including concerts and seasonal festivals, offers garden tours, and volunteer opportunities for all ages. As a rental venue we are available for corporate functions, private parties, and special events.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 16
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Historical Society of Princeton

None
Last Update: 2026-01-13
Between 800 and 849

Inspired by the worldly and entrepreneurial spirit of the citizens of Princeton, and graced by the important legacy of the town, the Historical Society of Princeton develops signature programs of learning and discovery to connect the lessons of the past to the issues which inform our future. Using our historic sites and collections, we teach local and international visitors that history is relevant in daily life, and can be used to explore a shared connection among people; to celebrate a love of place; and to promote conversations on creating a better future.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 12
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/reeves-reed-arboretum.jpeg
Reeves-Reed Arboretum
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/defaultcompany.jpeg
Historical Society of Princeton
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
Reeves-Reed Arboretum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Historical Society of Princeton
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 Reeves-Reed Arboretum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Historical Society of Princeton in 2026.

Incident History — Reeves-Reed Arboretum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Reeves-Reed Arboretum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Historical Society of Princeton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Historical Society of Princeton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/reeves-reed-arboretum.jpeg
Reeves-Reed Arboretum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Historical Society of Princeton
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Historical Society of Princeton company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Reeves-Reed Arboretum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Historical Society of Princeton company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Reeves-Reed Arboretum company.

In the current year, Historical Society of Princeton company and Reeves-Reed Arboretum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Historical Society of Princeton company nor Reeves-Reed Arboretum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Historical Society of Princeton company nor Reeves-Reed Arboretum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Historical Society of Princeton company nor Reeves-Reed Arboretum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum company nor Historical Society of Princeton company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum nor Historical Society of Princeton holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum company nor Historical Society of Princeton company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Reeves-Reed Arboretum company employs more people globally than Historical Society of Princeton company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum nor Historical Society of Princeton holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum nor Historical Society of Princeton holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum nor Historical Society of Princeton holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum nor Historical Society of Princeton holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum nor Historical Society of Princeton holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Reeves-Reed Arboretum nor Historical Society of Princeton 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