Comparison Overview

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis

VS

Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis

3000 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN, 46038, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis is extraordinary—always! Through its world-class exhibits, the museum strives to excite and encourage family learning and curiosity by providing limitless opportunities to create memories and foster a sense of discovery. The mission of The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis is to create extraordinary learning experiences across the arts, sciences, and humanities that have the power to transform the lives of children and families. With 472,900 square feet and five floors of family learning, The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis is the world’s biggest and best children’s museum. Here you can discover new worlds, talk with real experts, and see authentic artifacts in always-changing exhibits.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 411
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre

1 Straits Boulevard, Singapore, 018906, SG
Last Update: 2026-01-14

The Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre (SCCC) collaborates with arts and cultural groups and community partners to promote and develop local Chinese culture. By creating accessible and engaging content, we strive to nurture greater appreciation of our multi-cultural identity and sense of belonging. Opened by our Patron PM Lee Hsien Loong on 19 May 2017, our Centre located in the heart of Singapore encourages everyone to enjoy exhibitions, fairs, performances, seminars, talks, workshops and other cultural activities throughout the year.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 58
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/the-children's-museum-of-indianapolis.jpeg
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis
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/singapore-chinese-cultural-centre.jpeg
Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre
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
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre
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 The Children's Museum of Indianapolis in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre in 2026.

Incident History — The Children's Museum of Indianapolis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-children's-museum-of-indianapolis.jpeg
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/singapore-chinese-cultural-centre.jpeg
Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company.

In the current year, Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company and The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company nor The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company nor The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company nor The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis company employs more people globally than Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Children's Museum of Indianapolis nor Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre 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