Comparison Overview

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

VS

Henry Moore Foundation

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

1204 Minor Ave, Seattle, WA, US, 98101
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.preservewa.org

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
View Profile

Henry Moore Foundation

Dane Tree House, Much Hadham, Hertfordshire, SG10 6EE, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.henry-moore.org

The Henry Moore Foundation was founded by the artist and his family in 1977 to encourage public appreciation of the visual arts. Today we support innovative sculpture projects, devise an imaginative programme of exhibitions and research worldwide, and preserve the legacy of Moore himself: one of the great sculptors of the 20th century, who did so much to bring the art form to a wider audience.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 83
Subsidiaries: 2
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/the-henry-moore-foundation.jpeg
Henry Moore Foundation
—
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
Henry Moore Foundation
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 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Henry Moore Foundation in 2026.

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 — Henry Moore Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Henry Moore Foundation 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/the-henry-moore-foundation.jpeg
Henry Moore Foundation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Henry Moore Foundation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Henry Moore Foundation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company.

In the current year, Henry Moore Foundation company and Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Henry Moore Foundation company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Henry Moore Foundation company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Henry Moore Foundation company nor Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company nor Henry Moore Foundation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor Henry Moore Foundation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Henry Moore Foundation company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company.

Henry Moore Foundation company employs more people globally than Washington Trust for Historic Preservation company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor Henry Moore Foundation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor Henry Moore Foundation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor Henry Moore Foundation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor Henry Moore Foundation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor Henry Moore Foundation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Washington Trust for Historic Preservation nor Henry Moore Foundation 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