Comparison Overview

South Australian Museum

VS

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill

South Australian Museum

South Australian Museum, Adelaide, SA, 5000, AU
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au

The South Australian Museum is recognised as a global leader in Australian Aboriginal heritage and scientific research, based on its research and premier collections. The Museum is also one of the most highly visited cultural institutions in the country. The South Australian Museum is a division of Arts SA within the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). The role of the museum, as prescribed under the South Australian Museum Act, 1976-1985 is: to increase knowledge and understanding of our natural and cultural heritage: to serve the community by acquiring, preserving, interpreting and presenting to the public, material evidence concerning people and nature; and to provide opportunities for study, education and enjoyment.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 102
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill

3501 Lexington Rd, Harrodsburg, 40330, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/south-australian-museum.jpeg
South Australian 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/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
Compliance Summary
South Australian Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
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 South Australian Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill in 2026.

Incident History — South Australian Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

South Australian Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/south-australian-museum.jpeg
South Australian Museum
Incidents

No Incident

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

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to South Australian Museum company.

In the current year, Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company and South Australian Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor South Australian Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor South Australian Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company nor South Australian Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither South Australian Museum company nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither South Australian Museum nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither South Australian Museum company nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

South Australian Museum company employs more people globally than Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither South Australian Museum nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither South Australian Museum nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither South Australian Museum nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither South Australian Museum nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither South Australian Museum nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill holds HIPAA certification.

Neither South Australian Museum nor Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill 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