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

Comparison Overview

Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)
VS
Lockheed MartinLockheed Martin
Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)

Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)

Filton, Bristol, BS34 8JH, GB

Last Update: 21/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://des.mod.uk
761/1000Fair

DE&S is part of the Ministry of Defence. We equip our armed forces with the edge to protect our nation. We are proud to deliver world-class equipment and services to the British Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, playing a vital role in keeping the UK safe and pros...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:3,473
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 20817, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

The world relies on what we do. Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, with offices across the U.S. and around the globe, our team delivers solutions that strengthen national security, shape industries and push engineering and technology to new levels. We collaborate t...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:104,489
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)

Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)

-
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
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

-
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 Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) in 2026.

Incidents

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

Lockheed Martin has 92.31% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Lockheed Martin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lockheed Martin 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...
Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)

Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC1774283448
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOCULANOR1777876145
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC621092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1