Comparison Overview

The Royal Compound in Belgrade

VS

Four Mile Historic Park

The Royal Compound in Belgrade

Bulevar Kneza Aleksandra Karađorđevića, Belgrade, 11000, RS
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.royalfamily.org/

The Royal Compound in Belgrade consists of the Royal Palace (1924-29) and the White Palace (1934-36), built with the private funds of His Majesty King Alexander I. Currently, the Royal Palace is the home of His Royal Highness Crown Prince Alexander II, grandson of the King who built it, his wife Princess Katherine and his two sons, Hereditary Prince Philip and Prince Alexander.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Four Mile Historic Park

715 S. FOREST ST, DENVER, Colorado, 80246, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.FourMilePark.org

On the banks of Cherry Creek, just four miles from downtown Denver, Four Mile Historic Park is a 12-acre oasis featuring Denver's oldest standing structure, pioneer exhibits, special events for all ages, and guided tours that transport visitors to Colorado's frontier past. Once a wayside inn and stage stop, Four Mile House and grounds are the setting for unique family, student, senior and rental activities that offer visitors a unique experience apart from the bustle of their busy lives.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 19
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-royal-palace.jpeg
The Royal Compound in Belgrade
—
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/four-mile-historic-park.jpeg
Four Mile Historic Park
—
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 Royal Compound in Belgrade
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Four Mile Historic Park
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 Royal Compound in Belgrade in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Four Mile Historic Park in 2026.

Incident History — The Royal Compound in Belgrade (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Royal Compound in Belgrade cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Four Mile Historic Park (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Four Mile Historic Park cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-royal-palace.jpeg
The Royal Compound in Belgrade
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/four-mile-historic-park.jpeg
Four Mile Historic Park
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Four Mile Historic Park company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Royal Compound in Belgrade company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

The Royal Compound in Belgrade company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Four Mile Historic Park company has not reported any.

In the current year, Four Mile Historic Park company and The Royal Compound in Belgrade company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Four Mile Historic Park company nor The Royal Compound in Belgrade company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Four Mile Historic Park company nor The Royal Compound in Belgrade company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

The Royal Compound in Belgrade company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Four Mile Historic Park company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade company nor Four Mile Historic Park company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade nor Four Mile Historic Park holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade company nor Four Mile Historic Park company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Four Mile Historic Park company employs more people globally than The Royal Compound in Belgrade company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade nor Four Mile Historic Park holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade nor Four Mile Historic Park holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade nor Four Mile Historic Park holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade nor Four Mile Historic Park holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade nor Four Mile Historic Park holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Royal Compound in Belgrade nor Four Mile Historic Park 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