Comparison Overview

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill

VS

The Menil Collection

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill

3501 Lexington Rd, Harrodsburg, 40330, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.shakervillageky.org

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill is a landmark destination that shares 3,000 acres of discovery in the spirit of the Kentucky Shakers. With 34 original Shaker structures, the site is home to the country’s largest private collection of original 19th century buildings and is the largest National Historic Landmark in Kentucky. This nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization encompasses The Inn, The Trustees' Table restaurant, Craft Shops, The Historic Centre with museum exhibitions and guided programs, The Farm, The Preserve and a number of other event venues and guest services.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 72
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

The Menil Collection

1533 Sul Ross Street, Houston, 77006, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.menil.org

Philanthropists and art patrons John and Dominique de Menil established the Menil Foundation in 1954 to foster greater public understanding and appreciation of art, architecture, culture, religion, and philosophy. In 1987, the Menil Collection’s main building opened to the public. Today, the museum’s art buildings and green spaces are nestled within a residential neighborhood in central Houston. On a 30-acre campus, visitors are invited to explore the Menil’s main museum building, Menil Drawing Institute, Cy Twombly Gallery, and Dan Flavin Installation at Richmond Hall.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 106
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/shaker-village-of-pleasant-hill.jpeg
Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
—
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/the-menil-collection.jpeg
The Menil Collection
—
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
Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Menil Collection
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 Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The Menil Collection in 2026.

Incident History — Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Menil Collection (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Menil Collection cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/shaker-village-of-pleasant-hill.jpeg
Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-menil-collection.jpeg
The Menil Collection
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Menil Collection company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Menil Collection company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company.

In the current year, The Menil Collection company and Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Menil Collection company nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Menil Collection company nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Menil Collection company nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor The Menil Collection company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill nor The Menil Collection holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor The Menil Collection company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Menil Collection company employs more people globally than Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill nor The Menil Collection holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill nor The Menil Collection holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill nor The Menil Collection holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill nor The Menil Collection holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill nor The Menil Collection holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill nor The Menil Collection 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