Comparison Overview

Sigal Music Museum

VS

The History Center

Sigal Music Museum

516 Buncombe St, None, Greenville, South Carolina, US, 29601
Last Update: 2025-12-01

Sigal Music Museum features one of the largest collections of historically significant instruments in the United States. Resonating with sights, sounds, opportunities, and discovery, Sigal Music Museum provides a total musical immersion experience designed to delight and inspire music lovers of all ages. Our visitors include music aficionados, students, musicians, scholars, and tourists from across the country and around the world.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The History Center

800 2nd Ave SE, Cedar Rapids, 52403, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Our Mission The History Center preserves and tells the story of Linn County, Iowa. Our Vision The History Center engages people of all ages and backgrounds by preserving and telling stories of Linn County’s past and connecting the past to the present and future of Linn County. Our Values Passion We are passionate about history. Leadership We are leaders in the nonprofit realm. We have a clear vision of where we are and where we are going. we gather and focus our resources to deliver best outcomes. We strive for excellence through continuous improvement. We operate transparently and ethically and are exceptional stewards of Linn County resources held in the public trust. Inclusiveness We respect people, value diversity and are committed to equality. We represent all Linn County and reflect this county's diversity in everything this institution undertakes. We are conscious of the narratives that shape our visitor's views of history and their place in the world. We are a place where people can see themselves with dignity and each other with empathy, care and respect. We value and recognize the contribution of all involved with this institution.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 32
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/sigal-music-museum.jpeg
Sigal Music 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/history-center.jpeg
The History Center
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
Sigal Music Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The History Center
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 Sigal Music Museum in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for The History Center in 2025.

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

Sigal Music Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

The History Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sigal-music-museum.jpeg
Sigal Music Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/history-center.jpeg
The History Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The History Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Sigal Music Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The History Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Sigal Music Museum company.

In the current year, The History Center company and Sigal Music Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The History Center company nor Sigal Music Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The History Center company nor Sigal Music Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The History Center company nor Sigal Music Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Sigal Music Museum company nor The History Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Sigal Music Museum nor The History Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Sigal Music Museum company nor The History Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The History Center company employs more people globally than Sigal Music Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Sigal Music Museum nor The History Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Sigal Music Museum nor The History Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Sigal Music Museum nor The History Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Sigal Music Museum nor The History Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Sigal Music Museum nor The History Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Sigal Music Museum nor The History Center holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.11.1, vllm has a critical remote code execution vector in a config class named Nemotron_Nano_VL_Config. When vllm loads a model config that contains an auto_map entry, the config class resolves that mapping with get_class_from_dynamic_module(...) and immediately instantiates the returned class. This fetches and executes Python from the remote repository referenced in the auto_map string. Crucially, this happens even when the caller explicitly sets trust_remote_code=False in vllm.transformers_utils.config.get_config. In practice, an attacker can publish a benign-looking frontend repo whose config.json points via auto_map to a separate malicious backend repo; loading the frontend will silently run the backend’s code on the victim host. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. Prior to 12.5.0, by crafting a malicious URL, an attacker could access routes that are not allowed, even though the reply.from is defined for specific routes in @fastify/reply-from. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.5.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Gin-vue-admin is a backstage management system based on vue and gin. In 2.8.6 and earlier, attackers can delete any file on the server at will, causing damage or unavailability of server resources. Attackers can control the 'FileMd5' parameter to delete any file and folder.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Portkey.ai Gateway is a blazing fast AI Gateway with integrated guardrails. Prior to 1.14.0, the gateway determined the destination baseURL by prioritizing the value in the x-portkey-custom-host request header. The proxy route then appends the client-specified path to perform an external fetch. This can be maliciously used by users for SSRF attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.14.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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