Comparison Overview

Western Australian Museum

VS

Utah Historical Society

Western Australian Museum

Perth Cultural Centre, James Street Perth , Perth , 6000, AU
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The Western Australian Museum was established in 1891 (as the ‘Perth Museum’) and its initial collections were of geological, ethnological and biological specimens. Indeed, it can claim to be one of the oldest scientific institutions in the State. In 1959, its botanical collection was transferred to the new Herbarium and it continued to concentrate on earth sciences and zoology. The 1960s and 1970s saw the addition of responsibility for developing and maintaining the State’s anthropological, archaeological, maritime archaeological and social and cultural history collections. The Museum’s aim is to advocate knowledge about the collections and communicate it to the public through a variety of media, but particularly through a program of exhibitions and publications. Keep our online community safe and respectful by following our community guidelines: https://visit.museum.wa.gov.au/social-media-community-guidelines

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 270
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Utah Historical Society

3760 S Highland Dr. , Millcreek, 84106, US
Last Update: 2026-01-13
Between 750 and 799

The Utah Historical Society works to foster curiosity about the past, inform the present, and strengthen our shared future. The Utah Historical Society is a public history organization dedicated to sharing the history of Utah through scholarship, research, library & collections, and public engagement. We have several core initiatives that constitute the agency, helping to tell the story of the history of the state. With our recent name change from the Utah Division of State History to the Utah Historical Society and the addition of the future Museum of Utah, our next chapter will be more visible, integrated, and hopefully accessible with our physical presence on Utah’s State Capitol grounds beginning in 2026.

NAICS: 712
NAICS Definition: Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
Employees: 40
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/western-australian-museum.jpeg
Western Australian 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/uthistoricalsociety.jpeg
Utah 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
Western Australian Museum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Utah 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 Western Australian Museum in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Utah Historical Society in 2026.

Incident History — Western Australian Museum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Western Australian Museum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Utah 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/western-australian-museum.jpeg
Western Australian Museum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uthistoricalsociety.jpeg
Utah Historical Society
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Western Australian Museum company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Utah Historical Society company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Utah Historical Society company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Western Australian Museum company.

In the current year, Utah Historical Society company and Western Australian Museum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Utah Historical Society company nor Western Australian Museum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Utah Historical Society company nor Western Australian Museum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Utah Historical Society company nor Western Australian Museum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Western Australian Museum company nor Utah Historical Society company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Western Australian Museum nor Utah Historical Society holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Western Australian Museum company nor Utah Historical Society company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Western Australian Museum company employs more people globally than Utah Historical Society company, reflecting its scale as a Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos.

Neither Western Australian Museum nor Utah Historical Society holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Western Australian Museum nor Utah Historical Society holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Western Australian Museum nor Utah Historical Society holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Western Australian Museum nor Utah Historical Society holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Western Australian Museum nor Utah Historical Society holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Western Australian Museum nor Utah Historical Society 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