Comparison Overview

The Royal Photographic Society

VS

Nashville Zoo

The Royal Photographic Society

337 Paintworks, Arnos Vale , Bristol, Bristol , BS4 3AR, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rps.org

The Royal Photographic Society was founded in 1853 'to promote the Art and Science of Photography'​, a mission it continues to this day. It has a Royal Charter and is an Educational Charity with 10,000 members. Membership is open to everyone interested in photography in the UK and throughout the world, be they amateur or professional, artist or scientist, young or old. Members are invited to take up the challenge of The Society’s Distinctions. The three levels are Licentiateship, Associateship, and Fellowship and have their knowledge and practical abilities recognised. Through the active online community and the Regional and Special Interest Group events members can share, learn and develop their technical, visual and creative skills. Regions and Groups have meetings, exhibitions and competitions and publish their own newsletters and magazines.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 66
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Nashville Zoo

3777 Nolensville Pike, Nashville, 37211, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nashvillezoo.org

Nashville Zoo at Grassmere is a 188-acre institution accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) whose mission is to inspire a culture of understanding and discovery of our natural world through conservation, innovation and leadership. Located in the heart of Nashville, the zoo has an extensive animal collection within its current 88 acres of developed exhibits. The Zoo attracts more than one million visitors annually as well as serving a diverse community through outreach programs within greater Nashville and mid-Tennessee.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 306
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-photographic-society.jpeg
The Royal Photographic Society
—
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/nashville-zoo.jpeg
Nashville Zoo
—
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 Photographic Society
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Nashville Zoo
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 Photographic Society in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Nashville Zoo in 2026.

Incident History — The Royal Photographic Society (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Royal Photographic Society cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Nashville Zoo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nashville Zoo 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-photographic-society.jpeg
The Royal Photographic Society
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nashville-zoo.jpeg
Nashville Zoo
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Nashville Zoo company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Royal Photographic Society company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Nashville Zoo company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Royal Photographic Society company.

In the current year, Nashville Zoo company and The Royal Photographic Society company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Nashville Zoo company nor The Royal Photographic Society company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Nashville Zoo company nor The Royal Photographic Society company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Nashville Zoo company nor The Royal Photographic Society company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society company nor Nashville Zoo company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society nor Nashville Zoo holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society company nor Nashville Zoo company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Nashville Zoo company employs more people globally than The Royal Photographic Society company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society nor Nashville Zoo holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society nor Nashville Zoo holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society nor Nashville Zoo holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society nor Nashville Zoo holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society nor Nashville Zoo holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Royal Photographic Society nor Nashville Zoo 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