Comparison Overview

Springfield Art Museum

VS

Swope Art Museum

Springfield Art Museum

1111 East Brookside Drive, Springfield, Missouri, 65807, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sgfmuseum.org/

OUR MISSION… The Springfield Art Museum is dedicated to enhancing the education and documenting the diverse cultural heritage of the people of southwest Missouri, through the collection, preservation and exhibition of art objects. OUR VISION… The Springfield Art Museum recognizes the past and embraces the future as a collaborator and catalyst for the transformation of individuals and the community through art. The Art Museum is a vital partner in the economic development of the city and values collaboration. The Museum will actively cultivate the use of its facilities both interior and exterior as a cultural resource for its citizens through the continued expansion of its permanent collection, creative development and expansion of exhibitions and providing educational outreach to the citizens of Southwest Missouri.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Swope Art Museum

25 South 7th Street, Terre Haute, Indiana, 47807, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.swope.org

Small but significant, the Swope Art Museum is best known for its collection of works by great American artists such as Grant Wood, Thomas Hart Benton, Charles Burchfield, Zoltan Sepeshy and Edward Hopper. Founded through the forward-thinking efforts of local jewelry merchant and cultural connoisseur, Sheldon Swope (1843-1929), the Museum is dedicated to fulfilling its founder's wishes of providing his community, and all other comers, a place to explore the visual arts "...publicly and free of charge...forever," through exhibitions and educational opportunities.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 16
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/springfield-art-museum.jpeg
Springfield Art 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/swope-art-museum.jpeg
Swope Art 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
Compliance Summary
Springfield Art Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Swope Art Museum
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 Springfield Art Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Swope Art Museum in 2026.

Incident History — Springfield Art Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Springfield Art Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Swope Art Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Swope Art Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/springfield-art-museum.jpeg
Springfield Art Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/swope-art-museum.jpeg
Swope Art Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Swope Art Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Springfield Art Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Swope Art Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Springfield Art Museum company.

In the current year, Swope Art Museum company and Springfield Art Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Swope Art Museum company nor Springfield Art Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Swope Art Museum company nor Springfield Art Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Swope Art Museum company nor Springfield Art Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Springfield Art Museum company nor Swope Art Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Springfield Art Museum nor Swope Art Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Springfield Art Museum company nor Swope Art Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Swope Art Museum company employs more people globally than Springfield Art Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Springfield Art Museum nor Swope Art Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Springfield Art Museum nor Swope Art Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Springfield Art Museum nor Swope Art Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Springfield Art Museum nor Swope Art Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Springfield Art Museum nor Swope Art Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Springfield Art Museum nor Swope Art Museum 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