Comparison Overview

Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center

VS

Abilene Zoological Gardens

Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center

717 General Booth Blvd., Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Our mission is to connect people to the marine environment, inspiring a more sustainable future. We aspire to be a driver in conservation, education, tourism, and sustainability, leading the charge to save wildlife and their ecosystems. The Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center features thousands of animals representing over 300 species. With more than 800,000 gallons of aquariums, we have animal habitats, interactive exhibits, education stations, boat tours, a Nature Trail, and more! For job opportunities go to: https://virginiabeach.gov/careers

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 194
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Abilene Zoological Gardens

2070 Zoo Lane, None, Abilene, Texas, US, 79602-1996
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 750 and 799

At Abilene Zoological Gardens (The Abilene Zoo) our purpose and our Mission is to be "a place of learning and adventure, where families make memories, share the joy of discovery and become inspired to preserve wildlife"​ for the citizens and the visitors of Abilene, Texas where we are one of the prominent, must-see, attractions in the City of Abilene. The Abilene Zoo was first established in 1919 before moving and becoming a formally founded zoological institution in 1966. Currently, it is a sixteen-acre facility, located in scenic Nelson Park, and is home to more than 1000 animals representing over 250 species from across the world with plans of expansion as part of our Master Plan. The Abilene Zoo became a proud member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) in 1985 and in 2015 were presented a prestigious Quarter Century of Continuous Accreditation Award by the AZA, promoting and meeting the current and highest standards of Animal Welfare and Care in North America. Our collection holds, and currently participates in, more than 30 of the AZA's Species Survival Plan (SSP) species and promote nearly two dozen local and international conservation efforts through our Conservation Fund Program "Quarters for Conservation"​. Of those SSPs we are participants and holders of several native Texas SSP species including: Attwater's Prairie Chicken, Ocelot, Greater Roadrunner, Swift Fox, Ring-tailed Cat, Burrowing Owl, Black-Footed Ferret, and Whooping Crane.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 16
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/virginia-aquarium-&-marine-science-center.jpeg
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science 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/abilene-zoological-gardens.jpeg
Abilene Zoological Gardens
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
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Abilene Zoological Gardens
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 Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Abilene Zoological Gardens in 2026.

Incident History — Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Abilene Zoological Gardens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Abilene Zoological Gardens cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/virginia-aquarium-&-marine-science-center.jpeg
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/abilene-zoological-gardens.jpeg
Abilene Zoological Gardens
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Abilene Zoological Gardens company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Abilene Zoological Gardens company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company.

In the current year, Abilene Zoological Gardens company and Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Abilene Zoological Gardens company nor Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Abilene Zoological Gardens company nor Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Abilene Zoological Gardens company nor Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company nor Abilene Zoological Gardens company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center nor Abilene Zoological Gardens holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company nor Abilene Zoological Gardens company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center company employs more people globally than Abilene Zoological Gardens company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center nor Abilene Zoological Gardens holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center nor Abilene Zoological Gardens holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center nor Abilene Zoological Gardens holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center nor Abilene Zoological Gardens holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center nor Abilene Zoological Gardens holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center nor Abilene Zoological Gardens 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