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

Comparison Overview

Defense Security Cooperation AgencyDefense Security Cooperation Agency
VS
British ArmyBritish Army
Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

2800 Defense Pentagon, Washington, 20301, US

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.dsca.mil
736/1000Moderate

The mission of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) is to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by building the capacity of foreign security forces to respond to shared challenges. DSCA leads the broader U.S. security cooperation enterpr...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:465
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
British Army

British Army

Trenchard Lines, Andover, GB

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.apply.army.mod.uk
763/1000Fair

Joining the British Army, you’ll get much more from life than you ever would with a civilian career – you’ll have the opportunity to do something that really matters, with a team that are like family to you. The sense of belonging in the Army is next level: when you’ve ...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:33,814
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

-
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
British Army

British Army

-
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 Defense Security Cooperation Agency in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for British Army in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Defense Security Cooperation Agency (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Defense Security Cooperation Agency cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

British Army 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...
Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DEF000101524
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DEF000101824
British Army

British Army

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BRI185612522

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2