Comparison Overview

Springfield Museum of Art

VS

First Division Museum at Cantigny

Springfield Museum of Art

107 Cliff Park Rd, Springfield, Ohio, 45504, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20

The Springfield Museum of Art (SMoA) in Springfield, Ohio is a community-oriented art museum. It was incorporated in 1952 by a group of artists and citizens who felt a need for a visual arts facility in the community. The permanent collection, nearly 2,000 objects in all media, is primarily comprised of American art, with particular strength in works by artists with strong ties to Ohio and the Midwest, and special concentrations in art by women, self-taught artists, prints, and art created since the mid-19th centruy. The Museum is accredited by the American Alliance of Museums. SMoA is the only art museum in Ohio to bear the distinction as a Smithsonian Affiliate. It is also a participant in the national Arts Bridges partnership program as well as Museums for All. Mission: Springfield Museum of Art expands creativity and vitality by connecting art and communities.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

First Division Museum at Cantigny

1 S 151 Winfield Road, Wheaton, IL, 60189, US
Last Update: 2026-01-12

The First Division Museum at Cantigny is dedicated to the1st Infantry Division of the US Army, the famous "Big Red One." Located on Cantigny Park in Wheaton, IL, the historic home and estate of the late Colonel Robert R.McCormick, the museum presents the history of America's first and oldest, continuously serving combat division. Formed for World War I in June,1917, the Big Red One has seen action in all of America's wars since, with the exception of the Korean War (1950-1953), when the division wason occupation duty in Germany. The division's story is told in breath-taking, immersive and interactive galleries, including the trenches of the First World War Western Front, Omaha Beach of D-Day fame in Normandy, France,during WorldWar I, and the triple canopy jungles of Vietnam. The museum houses15,000 artifacts,includes a research center with over 200,000 books and documents, and hasa vigorous public and educational programming and outreach agenda. The museum and park were bequeathed to "the peopleof Illinois" by Colonel McCormick in 1955 and are named for the village and battle of Cantigny, France, where McCormick served with the First Division in World War I. The Colonel went on to be the owner and publisher of the Chicago Tribune until his death. The museum and park are operated by the Robert R. McCormick Foundation of Chicago.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
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-museum-of-art-ohio.jpeg
Springfield Museum of Art
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/first-division-museum-at-cantigny.jpeg
First Division Museum at Cantigny
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 Museum of Art
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
First Division Museum at Cantigny
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 Museum of Art in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for First Division Museum at Cantigny in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — First Division Museum at Cantigny (X = Date, Y = Severity)

First Division Museum at Cantigny cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

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

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/first-division-museum-at-cantigny.jpeg
First Division Museum at Cantigny
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Springfield Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to First Division Museum at Cantigny company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, First Division Museum at Cantigny company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Springfield Museum of Art company.

In the current year, First Division Museum at Cantigny company and Springfield Museum of Art company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither First Division Museum at Cantigny company nor Springfield Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither First Division Museum at Cantigny company nor Springfield Museum of Art company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither First Division Museum at Cantigny company nor Springfield Museum of Art company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art company nor First Division Museum at Cantigny company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art nor First Division Museum at Cantigny holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art company nor First Division Museum at Cantigny company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Springfield Museum of Art company employs more people globally than First Division Museum at Cantigny company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art nor First Division Museum at Cantigny holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art nor First Division Museum at Cantigny holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art nor First Division Museum at Cantigny holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art nor First Division Museum at Cantigny holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art nor First Division Museum at Cantigny holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Springfield Museum of Art nor First Division Museum at Cantigny 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