Comparison Overview

Troy-Hayner Cultural Center

VS

Philbrook Museum of Art

Troy-Hayner Cultural Center

301 W. Main Street, Troy, OH, 45373, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.troyhayner.org

The Troy-Hayner Cultural Center provides a variety of arts, educational and cultural programming, mostly offered free and open to the public. The historic Hayner mansion is a famous Troy landmark, built in 1914. The facilities of the Hayner Center are available for public use. Visitors welcome. Concerts, exhibits and classes are offered year round.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 11
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Philbrook Museum of Art

2727 S. Rockford Rd., Tulsa, 74114, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
http://www.philbrook.org

Rooted in the beauty and architecture of an historic home gifted by the Phillips family in 1938, Philbrook Museum of Art has grown to become one of the preeminent art museums across the central United States. Highlights of the Museum’s permanent collection include Renaissance and Baroque paintings from the Kress Foundation, one of the greatest surveys of Native American art anywhere, and growing modern and contemporary collections. The Philbrook main campus spans 25 acres of grounds and formal gardens, and features an historic home displaying the museum’s permanent collection, as well as a modern museum complex. The satellite location in downtown Tulsa showcases Philbrook’s modern and contemporary art collections, as well as the Eugene B. Adkins Collection and Study Center of Native American art.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 117
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/troy-hayner-cultural-center.jpeg
Troy-Hayner Cultural Center
—
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/philbrook-museum-of-art.jpeg
Philbrook Museum of 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
Troy-Hayner Cultural Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Philbrook Museum of 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 Troy-Hayner Cultural Center in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Philbrook Museum of Art in 2026.

Incident History — Troy-Hayner Cultural Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Troy-Hayner Cultural Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Philbrook Museum of Art cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/troy-hayner-cultural-center.jpeg
Troy-Hayner Cultural Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/philbrook-museum-of-art.jpeg
Philbrook Museum of Art
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Philbrook Museum of Art company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Philbrook Museum of Art company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company.

In the current year, Philbrook Museum of Art company and Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Philbrook Museum of Art company nor Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Philbrook Museum of Art company nor Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Philbrook Museum of Art company nor Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company nor Philbrook Museum of Art company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center nor Philbrook Museum of Art holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company nor Philbrook Museum of Art company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Philbrook Museum of Art company employs more people globally than Troy-Hayner Cultural Center company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center nor Philbrook Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center nor Philbrook Museum of Art holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center nor Philbrook Museum of Art holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center nor Philbrook Museum of Art holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center nor Philbrook Museum of Art holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Troy-Hayner Cultural Center nor Philbrook Museum of Art 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