Comparison Overview

The Contemporary Jewish Museum

VS

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art

The Contemporary Jewish Museum

736 Mission St, San Francisco, 94103, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Since its founding in 1984, the Contemporary Jewish Museum (CJM) has distinguished itself as a welcoming place where visitors can connect with one another through dialogue and shared experiences with the arts. Ever changing, the CJM is a non-collecting institution that partners with national and international cultural institutions to present exhibitions that are both timely and relevant and represent the highest level of artistic achievement and scholarship. The CJM makes the diversity of the Jewish experience relevant for a twenty-first century audience. We accomplish this through innovative exhibitions and programs that educate, challenge, and inspire.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 50
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art

4525 Oak St, Kansas City, MO, 64111, US
Last Update: 2026-01-03

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art invites all people to explore the art in its care, and through its vast collections, the depths and complexities of human experiences. We strive to create a sense of belonging, where staff and volunteers can do meaningful work connecting people to art. We create an informed, invested group of staff and volunteers through shared values and open, direct and respectful communication. We embrace IDEAS (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access and Sustainability) in every aspect of our ideals and aspirations, as we believe these values to be paramount to success. Each staff member and volunteer embodies the institution’s commitments and agrees to exhibit behaviors that align with them. We hold one another to these expectations so that, together, we may know, own, energize and sustain our culture and the institution for generations to come.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 346
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-contemporary-jewish-museum.jpeg
The Contemporary Jewish 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/the-nelson-atkins-museum-of-art.jpeg
The Nelson-Atkins 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
Compliance Summary
The Contemporary Jewish Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
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 Contemporary Jewish Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in 2026.

Incident History — The Contemporary Jewish Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Contemporary Jewish Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-contemporary-jewish-museum.jpeg
The Contemporary Jewish Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-nelson-atkins-museum-of-art.jpeg
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Contemporary Jewish Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Contemporary Jewish Museum company.

In the current year, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company and The Contemporary Jewish Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company nor The Contemporary Jewish Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company nor The Contemporary Jewish Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company nor The Contemporary Jewish Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum company nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum company nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art company employs more people globally than The Contemporary Jewish Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Contemporary Jewish Museum nor The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 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