Comparison Overview

The Wetlands Institute

VS

Texas Military Forces Museum

The Wetlands Institute

1075 Stone Harbor Blvd, Stone Harbor, 08247, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

A world-class research, education and conservation center at the Jersey Shore that promotes appreciation, understanding and stewardship of wetlands and coastal ecosystems. We teach and inspire visitors of all ages about the essential role of our coastal ecosystems in their daily lives. Our well established diamonback terrapin conservation program is only part of the focus of our research and conservation. Other initiatives we focus on include bird conservation, coastal issues, global climate change, sustainability, fisheries, biodiversity, water resources, and much more. Visit our website to find out more.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 31
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Texas Military Forces Museum

P.O. Box 5218, Austin, Texas 78763-5218, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18

The 45,000-square foot Texas Military Forces Museum explores the history of the Lone Star State’s militia and volunteer forces from 1823 (date of the first militia muster in Stephen F. Austin’s colony) to 1903 when the Congress created the National Guard. From 1903 to the present the museum tells the story of the Texas Army and Air National Guard, as well as the Texas State Guard, in both peacetime and wartime. Permanent exhibits utilize uniforms, weapons, equipment, personal items, film, music, photographs, battle dioramas and realistic full-scale environments to tell the story of the Texas Military Forces in the Texas Revolution, the Texas Navy, the Texas Republic, the Mexican War, the Battles along the Indian Frontier, the War between the States, the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, Peace Keeping Deployments and the Global War on Terror. Living history programs, battle reenactments and other special events take place throughout the year. Admission to the museum is FREE.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 47
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-wetlands-institute.jpeg
The Wetlands Institute
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/texas-military-forces-museum.jpeg
Texas Military Forces 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
Compliance Summary
The Wetlands Institute
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Texas Military Forces Museum
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 Wetlands Institute in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Texas Military Forces Museum in 2026.

Incident History — The Wetlands Institute (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Wetlands Institute cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Texas Military Forces Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Military Forces Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-wetlands-institute.jpeg
The Wetlands Institute
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/texas-military-forces-museum.jpeg
Texas Military Forces Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Texas Military Forces Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Wetlands Institute company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Texas Military Forces Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Wetlands Institute company.

In the current year, Texas Military Forces Museum company and The Wetlands Institute company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Texas Military Forces Museum company nor The Wetlands Institute company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Texas Military Forces Museum company nor The Wetlands Institute company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Texas Military Forces Museum company nor The Wetlands Institute company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Wetlands Institute company nor Texas Military Forces Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Wetlands Institute nor Texas Military Forces Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Wetlands Institute company nor Texas Military Forces Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Texas Military Forces Museum company employs more people globally than The Wetlands Institute company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither The Wetlands Institute nor Texas Military Forces Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Wetlands Institute nor Texas Military Forces Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Wetlands Institute nor Texas Military Forces Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Wetlands Institute nor Texas Military Forces Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Wetlands Institute nor Texas Military Forces Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Wetlands Institute nor Texas Military Forces Museum 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