Comparison Overview

Vancouver Maritime Museum

VS

National Museum of The Marine Corps

Vancouver Maritime Museum

None
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 800 and 849

The Vancouver Maritime Museum is located within Vanier Park just west of False Creek on the Vancouver waterfront. Discover the world of shipwrecks and explorers; step back in time to 1944 on board St. Roch, Canada's celebrated RCMP schooner; explore the Children's Maritime Discovery Centre; visit historic vessels in our Heritage Harbour and enjoy our extensive permanent and temporary exhibits year round!

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 22
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

National Museum of The Marine Corps

18900 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Triangle, Virginia, 22172, US
Last Update: 2026-01-14
Between 750 and 799

The National Museum of the Marine Corps is a lasting tribute to U.S. Marines--past, present, and future. Situated on a 135-acre site adjacent to Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and under the command of Marine Corps University, the Museum's soaring design evokes the image of the flag-raisers of Iwo Jima and beckons visitors to this 120,000-square-foot structure. World-class interactive exhibits using the most innovative technology surround visitors with irreplaceable artifacts and immerse them in the sights and sounds of Marines in action. This is an official USMC account for the National Museum of the Marine Corps. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Marine Corps.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 66
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/vancouver-maritime-museum.jpeg
Vancouver Maritime 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/national-museum-of-the-marine-corps.jpeg
National Museum of The Marine Corps
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
Vancouver Maritime Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
National Museum of The Marine Corps
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 Vancouver Maritime Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for National Museum of The Marine Corps in 2026.

Incident History — Vancouver Maritime Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vancouver Maritime Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — National Museum of The Marine Corps (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Museum of The Marine Corps cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vancouver-maritime-museum.jpeg
Vancouver Maritime Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/national-museum-of-the-marine-corps.jpeg
National Museum of The Marine Corps
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Vancouver Maritime Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to National Museum of The Marine Corps company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, National Museum of The Marine Corps company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Vancouver Maritime Museum company.

In the current year, National Museum of The Marine Corps company and Vancouver Maritime Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither National Museum of The Marine Corps company nor Vancouver Maritime Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither National Museum of The Marine Corps company nor Vancouver Maritime Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither National Museum of The Marine Corps company nor Vancouver Maritime Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum company nor National Museum of The Marine Corps company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum nor National Museum of The Marine Corps holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum company nor National Museum of The Marine Corps company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

National Museum of The Marine Corps company employs more people globally than Vancouver Maritime Museum company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum nor National Museum of The Marine Corps holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum nor National Museum of The Marine Corps holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum nor National Museum of The Marine Corps holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum nor National Museum of The Marine Corps holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum nor National Museum of The Marine Corps holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Vancouver Maritime Museum nor National Museum of The Marine Corps 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