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

Comparison Overview

Defence Relationship Management (DRM)Defence Relationship Management (DRM)
VS
United States Department of WarUnited States Department of War
Defence Relationship Management (DRM)

Defence Relationship Management (DRM)

51-61 Clifton Street, London, EC2A 4EY, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile

Defence Relationship Management (DRM) partners with organisations throughout the UK, helping them understand the value of signing the Armed Forces Covenant and building mutually beneficial partnerships with Defence. It provides support on employing Reservists, veterans...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:43
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
United States Department of War

United States Department of War

Washington, DC, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://war.gov
812/1000Good

The mission of the Department of War is to provide military forces necessary to protect the security of our country. The U.S. military defends the homeland, deters adversaries, and builds security around the world by projecting U.S. influence and working with allies and...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:67,477
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Defence Relationship Management (DRM)

Defence Relationship Management (DRM)

-
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
United States Department of War

United States Department of War

-
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 Defence Relationship Management (DRM) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for United States Department of War in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Defence Relationship Management (DRM) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Defence Relationship Management (DRM) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - United States Department of War (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United States Department of War cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Defence Relationship Management (DRM)

Defence Relationship Management (DRM)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
United States Department of War

United States Department of War

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96680
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in ByteDance Coze Scraper Extension up to 2.0.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function chrome.runtime.onMessageExternal.addListener of the file static/background/index.js of the component External Message Handler. The manipulation of the argument body.url/paginationConfig/xPathConfig/body.urls/xPaths results in missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96678
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in weiqingwen spring-boot-forum up to 538eecc3c6b85fdf0768ab4e8354b48c0c17d94f. Affected is the function validate of the file src/main/java/com/qingwenwei/util/NewUserFormValidator.java of the component Avatar Upload. The manipulation of the argument Username leads to path traversal. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96676
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Fast FAC1900R 20190827_2.0.2. The impacted element is the function get_alias_name of the component uhttpd. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96606
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in LB-Link BL-CPE600EU 5.8.13. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file Mifi_config.bin of the component Configuration Backup Handler. The manipulation results in information disclosure. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70125
SUMMARY

Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8