Comparison Overview

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

VS

Royal Collection Trust

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

Royal Collection Trust

Buckingham Palace, London, GB, SW1A 1AA
Last Update: 2026-01-13
Between 750 and 799

Royal Collection Trust is one of the five departments of the Royal Household. We care for the Royal Collection, one of the world's greatest art collections, and manage the public opening of the official residences of His Majesty The King – Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh. Our work is undertaken without public funding of any kind. Income generated from admissions, our shops and other commercial initiatives funds the conservation of the Royal Collection and projects to increase access to and enjoyment of the Collection, such as exhibitions, publications and educational programmes. We employ over 500 people in a wide range of roles, from conservators and curators to marketers and merchandisers. We also recruit around 350 summer staff each year to help our front-of-house teams create a memorable experience for millions of visitors from all over the world. With Royal Collection Trust, you will be trained, supported and inspired to achieve the highest standards. Collaboration is at the heart of what we do, and whatever your role, you will play a key part in ensuring that the Royal Collection and Palaces are valued and enjoyed by everyone.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 414
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/royal-collection-trust.jpeg
Royal Collection 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
National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Royal Collection 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 National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Royal Collection Trust 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 — Royal Collection Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Royal Collection Trust 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/royal-collection-trust.jpeg
Royal Collection Trust
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Royal Collection Trust company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

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

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

Neither Royal Collection Trust company nor National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Royal Collection Trust company nor National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Royal Collection Trust 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 Royal Collection Trust company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Royal Collection Trust holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Royal Collection Trust company.

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

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Royal Collection Trust holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Royal Collection Trust holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Royal Collection Trust holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Royal Collection Trust holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Royal Collection Trust holds HIPAA certification.

Neither National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution nor Royal Collection Trust 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