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

Comparison Overview

Collins AerospaceCollins Aerospace
VS
Pratt & WhitneyPratt & Whitney
Collins Aerospace

Collins Aerospace

2730 W Tyvola Rd, Charlotte, 28217, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
373/1000Critical

Collins Aerospace is an RTX business. Our global team dreams, designs and delivers smarter, more connected solutions for passenger safety and comfort, mission success, space exploration, and operational efficiency and sustainability.

NAICS:3364
NAICS Definition:Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees:52,171
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT, US, 06108

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

Pratt & Whitney, an RTX business, is a global leader in propulsion systems, powering the most advanced aircraft in the world, and we are shaping the future of aviation. Our engines help connect people, grow economies and defend freedom. Our customers depend on us to get...

NAICS:3364
NAICS Definition:Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees:29,731
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Collins Aerospace

Collins Aerospace

-
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
Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

-
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 Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Collins Aerospace has 33.33% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pratt & Whitney in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Collins Aerospace (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Collins Aerospace cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Pratt & Whitney (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pratt & Whitney 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...
Collins Aerospace

Collins Aerospace

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AÉRCOPHEA1777287590
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
COL4492344101825
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
COL4541545100525
Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRA133082125

FAQ

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