Comparison Overview

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

VS

History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society)

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

1204 Minor Ave, Seattle, WA, US, 98101
Last Update: 2025-12-03
Between 750 and 799

The Washington Trust for Historic Preservation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the places that matter in Washington State and to promoting sustainable and economically viable communities through historic preservation. We are Washington’s only statewide nonprofit advocacy organization working to build a collective ethic that preserves historic places through education, collaboration, and stewardship.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 15
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society)

159 Brattle St., Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, 02138
Last Update: 2025-12-02
Between 750 and 799

Here in Cambridge, we don’t do history for history’s sake. It isn’t enough to present history as events that happened. We need to dig deeper, and answer “so what?” and “who cares?” Our humanities-focused approach to tackling contemporary issues through conversation and perspective-taking is one we’re proud of. History Cambridge was originally founded as Cambridge Historical Society in 1905. In 2021 we took a new direction and reinvented ourselves with a new name and a new mission: We engage with our city to explore how the past influences the present in order to shape a better future. Make history with us.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 9
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/washington-trust-for-historic-preservation.jpeg
Washington Trust for Historic Preservation
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/history-cambridge.jpeg
History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society)
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
Washington Trust for Historic Preservation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society)
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 Washington Trust for Historic Preservation in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) in 2025.

Incident History — Washington Trust for Historic Preservation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-trust-for-historic-preservation.jpeg
Washington Trust for Historic Preservation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/history-cambridge.jpeg
History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company and History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company.

In the current year, History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company and Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company employs more people globally than History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor History Cambridge (formerly Cambridge Historical Society) holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.11.1, vllm has a critical remote code execution vector in a config class named Nemotron_Nano_VL_Config. When vllm loads a model config that contains an auto_map entry, the config class resolves that mapping with get_class_from_dynamic_module(...) and immediately instantiates the returned class. This fetches and executes Python from the remote repository referenced in the auto_map string. Crucially, this happens even when the caller explicitly sets trust_remote_code=False in vllm.transformers_utils.config.get_config. In practice, an attacker can publish a benign-looking frontend repo whose config.json points via auto_map to a separate malicious backend repo; loading the frontend will silently run the backend’s code on the victim host. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. Prior to 12.5.0, by crafting a malicious URL, an attacker could access routes that are not allowed, even though the reply.from is defined for specific routes in @fastify/reply-from. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.5.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Gin-vue-admin is a backstage management system based on vue and gin. In 2.8.6 and earlier, attackers can delete any file on the server at will, causing damage or unavailability of server resources. Attackers can control the 'FileMd5' parameter to delete any file and folder.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Portkey.ai Gateway is a blazing fast AI Gateway with integrated guardrails. Prior to 1.14.0, the gateway determined the destination baseURL by prioritizing the value in the x-portkey-custom-host request header. The proxy route then appends the client-specified path to perform an external fetch. This can be maliciously used by users for SSRF attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.14.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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