Comparison Overview

BAE Systems

VS

General Atomics

BAE Systems

BAE Systems, 6 Carlton Gardens, London, None, GB, SW1Y 5AD
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.baesystems.com

At BAE Systems, we help our customers to stay a step ahead when protecting people and national security, critical infrastructure and vital information. We provide some of the world’s most advanced, technology-led defence, aerospace and security solutions and employ a skilled workforce of 107,000 people in more than 40 countries. From state of the art cyber threat detection to flight control systems that enable pilots to make better decisions, we never stop innovating to ensure that our customers maintain their advantage. This is a long-term commitment involving significant investments in skills. We also work closely with local partners to support economic development through the transfer of knowledge, skills and technology.

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 43,390
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

General Atomics

3550 General Atomics Ct, San Diego, CA, US, 92121
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799
http://ga.com

The freedom to explore. The promise to deliver. General Atomics, based in San Diego, CA, develops advanced technology solutions for government and commercial applications. Privately owned and vertically integrated, we have the freedom to invest in the most innovative technologies, and the resources to deliver them as products for customers around the world. Predator® unmanned aerial vehicles, TRIGA® research reactors, aircraft carrier launch and recovery systems, MagLev transport and fusion energy are some of our most innovative programs.

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 10,689
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bae-systems.jpeg
BAE Systems
—
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/general-atomics.jpeg
General Atomics
—
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
BAE Systems
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
General Atomics
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BAE Systems in 2025.

Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for General Atomics in 2025.

Incident History — BAE Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BAE Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — General Atomics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

General Atomics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bae-systems.jpeg
BAE Systems
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/general-atomics.jpeg
General Atomics
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

BAE Systems company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to General Atomics company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, General Atomics company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to BAE Systems company.

In the current year, General Atomics company and BAE Systems company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither General Atomics company nor BAE Systems company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither General Atomics company nor BAE Systems company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither General Atomics company nor BAE Systems company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BAE Systems company nor General Atomics company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Atomics holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

General Atomics company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to BAE Systems company.

BAE Systems company employs more people globally than General Atomics company, reflecting its scale as a Defense and Space Manufacturing.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Atomics holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Atomics holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Atomics holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Atomics holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Atomics holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Atomics holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References