Comparison Overview

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

VS

Menokin Foundation

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

Independence Ave at 6th St, SW, Washington, DC, 20560, US
Last Update: 2026-01-15
Between 750 and 799

The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum maintains the world's largest and most significant collection of aviation and space artifacts, encompassing all aspects of human flight, as well as related works of art and archival materials. It operates two landmark facilities that, together, welcome more than eight million visitors a year, making it the most visited museum in the country. It also is home to the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 331
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Menokin Foundation

4037 Menokin Rd, Warsaw, Virginia, 22572, US
Last Update: 2026-01-13
Between 750 and 799

Menokin is the 1769 home of Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Francis Lightfoot Lee and Rebecca Tayloe Lee. This former manor house remains one of Virginia’s best examples of original colonial architecture. Built near the Rappahannock River, the ruin is nestled among 500 nearly-untouched acres of historical landscape, 325 of which are part of the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. OUR MISSION is to use the historic ruin and the surrounding built and natural environments to transcend the traditional house museum experience. We use contemporary methods to create opportunities for the public to contemplate and explore the building of America. Our approach reimagines how individuals connect to history and promotes provocative dialogue around our nation’s founding ideals and realities. The Menokin Foundation is a 501(c)3 nonprofit that is supported wholly by philanthropic contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 6
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/smithsonian-institution-national-air-and-space-museum.jpeg
National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
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/menokin-foundation.jpeg
Menokin Foundation
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
National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Menokin Foundation
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 National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Menokin Foundation in 2026.

Incident History — National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Menokin Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Menokin Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/smithsonian-institution-national-air-and-space-museum.jpeg
National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/menokin-foundation.jpeg
Menokin Foundation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company and Menokin Foundation company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Menokin Foundation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company.

In the current year, Menokin Foundation company and National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Menokin Foundation company nor National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Menokin Foundation company nor National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Menokin Foundation company nor National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company nor Menokin Foundation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Menokin Foundation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Menokin Foundation company.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company employs more people globally than Menokin Foundation company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Menokin Foundation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Menokin Foundation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Menokin Foundation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Menokin Foundation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Menokin Foundation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Menokin Foundation 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