Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

British Army - Intelligence CorpsBritish Army - Intelligence Corps
VS
Israel Defense ForcesIsrael Defense Forces
British Army - Intelligence Corps

British Army - Intelligence Corps

Chicksands, Shefford, SG17 5PR, GB

Last Update: 12/01/2026

View Profile

The Intelligence Corps are responsible for information gathering and intelligence analysis. Modern military operations are dependant on the provision of highly accurate and timely intelligence. To provide this, our analysts are embedded in all parts of the Military to e...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Israel Defense Forces

Israel Defense Forces

1 HaKirya, Tel Aviv, 6473209, IL

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.idf.il/en
758/1000Fair

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is the military of the State of Israel, responsible for the nation's defense and security. Founded in 1948, the IDF ranks among the most battle-tested armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in six major wars. At the...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:11,813
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
British Army - Intelligence Corps

British Army - Intelligence Corps

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Israel Defense Forces

Israel Defense Forces

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for British Army - Intelligence Corps in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

Israel Defense Forces has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - British Army - Intelligence Corps (X = Date, Y = Severity)

British Army - Intelligence Corps cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Israel Defense Forces (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Israel Defense Forces cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
British Army - Intelligence Corps

British Army - Intelligence Corps

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Israel Defense Forces

Israel Defense Forces

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ISRTHE1772864633

FAQ

Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps company and Israel Defense Forces company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps and Israel Defense Forces, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps and Israel Defense Forces, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - British Army - Intelligence Corps or Israel Defense Forces ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - British Army - Intelligence Corps or Israel Defense Forces ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps and Israel Defense Forces, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between British Army - Intelligence Corps and Israel Defense Forces, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-8718
SUMMARY

tls_opt_dtls_peer_connection_id_value_get() in subsys/net/lib/sockets/sockets_tls.c, which handles getsockopt(SOL_TLS, TLS_DTLS_PEER_CID_VALUE), passed the caller-supplied optval directly to mbedtls_ssl_get_peer_cid() without verifying the buffer was at least MBEDTLS_SSL_CID_OUT_LEN_MAX (default 32) bytes. mbedtls_ssl_get_peer_cid() copies the peer-negotiated DTLS Connection ID (length 1..MBEDTLS_SSL_CID_OUT_LEN_MAX) into that buffer without a destination-size parameter, so a caller-supplied optlen smaller than the CID causes a write of up to 31 bytes past the buffer end. In CONFIG_USERSPACE builds the getsockopt syscall verifier (z_vrfy_zsock_getsockopt) bounce-buffers the user's optval into a kernel allocation of exactly optlen bytes (k_usermode_alloc_from_copy -> z_thread_malloc), so an unprivileged user thread that passes a small optlen on a connected DTLS socket with Connection ID enabled induces a kernel-heap buffer overflow, with the overflowing content being the remote peer's CID. The defect requires CONFIG_MBEDTLS_SSL_DTLS_CONNECTION_ID, an established DTLS session with a negotiated peer CID, and (for the kernel-crossing case) CONFIG_USERSPACE. Introduced when the TLS_DTLS_CID option was added (v3.5.0). The fix rejects callers whose optlen is below MBEDTLS_SSL_CID_OUT_LEN_MAX with -EINVAL.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-10
UPDATED
Date2026-08-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-48161
SUMMARY

react18-use is a React 19 use hook shim. Between 2026-05-19 01:07:01 and 2026-05-19 15:20:43, the default branch contained malicious commits 7b79148d1495a2505f9277da295a98cf176f4496 through 7b79148d1495a2505f9277da295a98cf176f4496 that executed remote attacker-controlled code on developer machines during `npm install`. The commits were removed by force-push, but local clones, forks, and direct-SHA URLs may still contain them, and `npm install` against an affected checkout will still execute the code today. The package was not published to npm. `src/install.js` was added and wired into the `postinstall` script. It fetched a JavaScript payload from an attacker-controlled HTTPS endpoint (configurable via an environment variable), disabled TLS verification, and evaluated the response as code with `require` available. Execution was deliberately skipped on CI and cloud/serverless environments, targeting developer workstations. The second-stage payload was attacker-hosted and cannot be reconstructed. Assume full compromise of anything reachable from a Node process with the user's permissions. Those who ran `npm install` against an affected checkout on a developer machine on or after 2026-05-19 01:07:01 should treat the machine as compromised, rotate every credential the machine could reach, audit account activity since 2026-05-19 01:07:01, and clean local clones.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-10
UPDATED
Date2026-08-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-11812
SUMMARY

The UpdateHub management subsystem (subsys/mgmt/updatehub/updatehub.c) drives every update operation through a single file-scope ctx structure that holds the CoAP block context, payload buffer, status code, socket, and a one-element poll-fd array fds[1]. Access to ctx was not serialized, and prepare_fds() wrote ctx.fds[ctx.nfds] and incremented ctx.nfds with no bounds check. Two independent paths mutate ctx concurrently: the background autohandler running on the system workqueue, and user-triggered operations reached through the updatehub run shell command, direct API calls, or — since the operations are exposed as syscalls — userspace threads. When a second flow enters prepare_fds() while ctx.nfds is already 1, the write lands one element past the array; by struct layout it overlaps the adjacent ctx.sock/ctx.nfds members. More broadly, the unsynchronized sharing lets two flows interleave connection setup and teardown, double-closing a socket descriptor or scribbling the shared buffers. The result is corruption of the update subsystem's internal state and denial of service of the firmware-update path; the out-of-bounds write is contained within the ctx structure and there is no demonstrated path to memory outside it or to code execution. Triggering requires a local actor able to invoke update operations (or, with CONFIG_USERSPACE, an unprivileged userspace thread) and to win a timing race against the background handler; remote peers cannot control the race timing. The fix serializes the entry points with a mutex and adds a bounds check to prepare_fds().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-10
UPDATED
Date2026-08-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-11811
SUMMARY

The UpdateHub over-the-air update client's start_coap_client() in subsys/mgmt/updatehub/updatehub.c leaks the CoAP/DTLS socket descriptor on its connection-setup failure paths. The shared error: cleanup gated socket closing on a ret > 0 flag, but ret was set to -1 immediately after the socket was created, so when zsock_setsockopt() (DTLS) or zsock_connect() subsequently failed the gate was false and cleanup_connection() was never called. The open descriptor in the global ctx.sock was then overwritten by the next attempt, permanently leaking it from the socket / net_context pool until reboot. The failing setup path is reached every time the OTA client tries to contact the UpdateHub server and the connection cannot be established — driven automatically by the periodic autohandler() poll (and on demand via the updatehub_probe()/updatehub_update() API or the updatehub run shell command). The DTLS handshake/connect outcome is influenceable by a network or on-path attacker who drops, resets, or otherwise disrupts traffic to the server, and also fails naturally whenever the server is unreachable. Each failed attempt permanently leaks one descriptor; once the shared socket pool is exhausted, networking degrades device-wide until the device is rebooted, a denial-of-service condition. Severity is low because the leak rate is bounded by the configured OTA poll interval (default once per 24 hours), the effect is gradual and recovered by reboot, and only builds with the UpdateHub client enabled are affected. There is no memory-corruption, information-disclosure, or authentication impact.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-10
UPDATED
Date2026-08-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-30241
SUMMARY

Certain web interface components in affected TP-Link Aginet devices do not validate and sanitize user-supplied input properly before passing it to system-level command execution functions.  An authenticated adjacent attacker may inject specially crafted input to execute arbitrary operation system commands with elevated privileges. Successful exploitation may allow execution of arbitrary system commands, potentially leading to full device compromise.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-10
UPDATED
Date2026-08-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA