Comparison Overview

Discovery Centre

VS

Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art

Discovery Centre

1215 Lower Water Street, Halifax, B3J3S8, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-23

Discovery Centre is a non-profit, registered charitable organization that is passionate about its mission to bring STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and math) to life through fun, interactive learning experiences. From its beginnings as a travelling science show to its spectacular new home on the Halifax Waterfront, Discovery Centre has grown a lot over 30 years of operation. But through it all, Discovery Centre has stayed true to its vision: using its facility, people and passion to demonstrate how STEAM can empower our youth, grow Nova Scotia’s knowledge-based economy and inspire an innovative culture by showcasing our best and brightest.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 49
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art

150 West 17th street, New York, New York, 10011, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

The Rubin is a global museum dedicated to presenting Himalayan art and its insights. Founded in 2004, the Rubin serves people internationally through exhibitions, participatory experiences, a dynamic digital platform, and partnerships. Inspired and informed by Himalayan art, the Rubin invites people to contemplate the human experience and deepen connections with the world around them in order to expand awareness, enhance well-being, and cultivate compassion. The Rubin advances scholarship through a series of educational initiatives, grants, collection sharing, and the stewardship of a collection of nearly 4,000 Himalayan art objects spanning 1,500 years of history—providing unprecedented access and resources to scholars, artists, and students across the globe.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 122
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-discovery-centre.jpeg
Discovery 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rubin-museum-of-art.jpeg
Rubin Museum of Himalayan 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
Discovery Centre
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rubin Museum of Himalayan 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 Discovery Centre in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art in 2026.

Incident History — Discovery Centre (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Discovery Centre cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Rubin Museum of Himalayan 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-discovery-centre.jpeg
Discovery Centre
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rubin-museum-of-art.jpeg
Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Discovery Centre company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Discovery Centre company.

In the current year, Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company and Discovery Centre company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company nor Discovery Centre company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company nor Discovery Centre company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company nor Discovery Centre company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Discovery Centre company nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Discovery Centre nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Discovery Centre company nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art company employs more people globally than Discovery Centre company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Discovery Centre nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Discovery Centre nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Discovery Centre nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Discovery Centre nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Discovery Centre nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Discovery Centre nor Rubin Museum of Himalayan 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