Comparison Overview

Tour-Mate Systems Ltd.

VS

Bainbridge Art Museum

Tour-Mate Systems Ltd.

137 St. Regis Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M3J1Y6, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. produces interpretive solutions and multimedia tours for museums, art galleries, historic sites, botanical gardens, national parks, corporate events and temporary exhibitions. We have offices in Toronto, Ontario and Victor, New York, and our solutions can be found in Australia, Barbados, Canada, China, India, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Macao, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and across the United States. Founder Neil Poch formed the company in response to the frustration of being unable to find adequate interpretation while on vacation in 1988. For the past two decades, Tour-Mate audio and multimedia tours and products have been featured at prominent attractions such as Mount Rushmore, The Alamo, the Grand Canyon, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, the Empire State Building, the Montreal Museum of Fine Art and numerous other locations around the globe. We are a company with a heart. We believe that the world we live in, with all of it’s history and beauty, should be accessible and available to all people. That is why most of our solutions come with accessibility features for the visually impaired, hearing impaired, and differently-abled people. We offer an eco-friendly line of products that are used in many National Parks and gardens around the world, with little to no negative output. Tour-Mate also donated the audio tour equipment for the Ground Zero Museum Workshop honoring the sacrifice of the first responders at 911.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Bainbridge Art Museum

Mailing: P.O. Box 11413, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110, Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110, US
Last Update: 2026-01-13

Bainbridge Art Museum is a regional visual arts museum in the planning and design stages. We plan to open in fall 2012. We are an art museum devoted to the art and crafts of our region. We will host exhibits and education programs geared to all ages and interests. The museum will house a permanent art collection, comprised of gifts of art - and promised gifts of art - from regional art collectors, artists, galleries and estates. We will open in our "complete" form in fall 2012, and look forward to adding to the rich cultural mix of Puget Sound.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 2
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/tour-mate-systems-ltd-.jpeg
Tour-Mate Systems Ltd.
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/bainbridge-art-museum.jpeg
Bainbridge Art 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
Tour-Mate Systems Ltd.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Bainbridge Art 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 Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Bainbridge Art Museum in 2026.

Incident History — Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Bainbridge Art Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bainbridge Art Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tour-mate-systems-ltd-.jpeg
Tour-Mate Systems Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bainbridge-art-museum.jpeg
Bainbridge Art Museum
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bainbridge Art Museum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Bainbridge Art Museum company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company.

In the current year, Bainbridge Art Museum company and Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Bainbridge Art Museum company nor Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Bainbridge Art Museum company nor Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Bainbridge Art Museum company nor Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company nor Bainbridge Art Museum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. nor Bainbridge Art Museum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company nor Bainbridge Art Museum company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. company employs more people globally than Bainbridge Art Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. nor Bainbridge Art Museum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. nor Bainbridge Art Museum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. nor Bainbridge Art Museum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. nor Bainbridge Art Museum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. nor Bainbridge Art Museum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tour-Mate Systems Ltd. nor Bainbridge Art 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