Comparison Overview

San Antonio Zoo

VS

Mount Stuart Trust

San Antonio Zoo

3903 N. St. Mary's, San Antonio, undefined, 78212, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sazoo.org/

San Antonio Zoo® is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization committed to securing a future for wildlife. Through its passion and expertise in animal care, conservation, and education, the zoo’s mission is to inspire its community to love, engage with, act for and protect animals and the places they live. The zoo welcomes more than a million visitors each year and is open year round. San Antonio Zoo is accredited by both the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Zoological Association of America.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 376
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Mount Stuart Trust

Mount Stuart, Mount Stuart, Isle of Bute, PA20 9LR, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mountstuart.com

Mount Stuart Trust – connecting people, art, land and learning The Mount Stuart Trust is a Charitable Trust founded in 1985, which works to fulfil the vision of the late John, Marquess of Bute. He believed that the public should be able to enjoy Mount Stuart and its gardens and surrounding grounds, and benefit from its collections and archives. John Bute generously endowed The Mount Stuart Trust with Bute Estate to provide the support which enables this remarkable house to be preserved and opened to visitors. The Trust owns and administers Mount Stuart and Bute Estate. The aims of the Trust are to conserve, preserve and maintain the house, gardens and surrounding grounds for future generations, whilst facilitating public interest, understanding and appreciation of fine and decorative art, architecture and the rural environment, and to promote access, education and research. Registered Scottish Charity number: SC009584.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 37
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/san-antonio-zoo.jpeg
San Antonio Zoo
—
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/mount-stuart-trust.jpeg
Mount Stuart 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
San Antonio Zoo
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mount Stuart 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 San Antonio Zoo in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Mount Stuart Trust in 2026.

Incident History — San Antonio Zoo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

San Antonio Zoo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mount Stuart Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mount Stuart Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/san-antonio-zoo.jpeg
San Antonio Zoo
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mount-stuart-trust.jpeg
Mount Stuart Trust
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

San Antonio Zoo company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Mount Stuart Trust company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Mount Stuart Trust company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to San Antonio Zoo company.

In the current year, Mount Stuart Trust company and San Antonio Zoo company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mount Stuart Trust company nor San Antonio Zoo company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mount Stuart Trust company nor San Antonio Zoo company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Mount Stuart Trust company nor San Antonio Zoo company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither San Antonio Zoo company nor Mount Stuart Trust company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither San Antonio Zoo nor Mount Stuart Trust holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither San Antonio Zoo company nor Mount Stuart Trust company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

San Antonio Zoo company employs more people globally than Mount Stuart Trust company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither San Antonio Zoo nor Mount Stuart Trust holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither San Antonio Zoo nor Mount Stuart Trust holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither San Antonio Zoo nor Mount Stuart Trust holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither San Antonio Zoo nor Mount Stuart Trust holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither San Antonio Zoo nor Mount Stuart Trust holds HIPAA certification.

Neither San Antonio Zoo nor Mount Stuart 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