Comparison Overview
Extant Aerospace

Extant Aerospace
1615 W. NASA Blvd, Melbourne, 32901, US
Last Update: 14/05/2026
Extant Aerospace manufactures and supplies complex electronic assemblies to the DOD and international customers for military and commercial applications. The company offers digital communications solutions including a full line of Improved Data Modems (IDM) in various h...

General Dynamics
11011 Sunset Hills Rd, Reston, 20190, US
Last Update: 22/09/2026
From Gulfstream business jets and combat vehicles to nuclear-powered submarines and communications systems, people around the world depend on our products and services for their safety and security. General Dynamics is headquartered in Reston, Virginia, and employs ove...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Extant Aerospace







General Dynamics






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Extant Aerospace in 2026.
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
General Dynamics has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Extant Aerospace (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Extant Aerospace cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - General Dynamics (X = Date, Y = Severity)
General Dynamics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Extant Aerospace

General Dynamics
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.