Comparison Overview

FlightAware

VS

Pratt & Whitney

FlightAware

Eleven Greenway Plaza, Houston, 77046, US
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 700 and 749

FlightAware (flightaware.com) is the leading provider of real-time and historical flight information and insights to the global aviation community. FlightAware serves all segments of the aviation marketplace through best-of-breed applications and data services that provide comprehensive information about the current and predicted movement of aircraft. Through the collection, interpretation, and enrichment of hundreds of sources of data, including data from FlightAware’s own proprietary terrestrial ADS-B network spanning seven continents and in 200 countries and territories, the company is able to transform millions of raw flight data elements and deliver them as coherent, easy-to-consume flight stories. As a single source of accurate and actionable data for aviation players large and small, FlightAware is central to aviation. ​ FlightAware is owned by Collins Aerospace (a Raytheon company) with headquarters in Houston and locations in New York, Austin, Singapore, and London.​

NAICS: 3364
NAICS Definition: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees: 135
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Pratt & Whitney

400 Main Street, None, East Hartford, CT, US, 06108
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

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 where they’re going and back again.

NAICS: 3364
NAICS Definition: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees: 27,741
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/flightaware.jpeg
FlightAware
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pratt-&-whitney.jpeg
Pratt & Whitney
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
FlightAware
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Pratt & Whitney
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for FlightAware in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Pratt & Whitney in 2025.

Incident History — FlightAware (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FlightAware cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Pratt & Whitney cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/flightaware.jpeg
FlightAware
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Configuration Error
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pratt-&-whitney.jpeg
Pratt & Whitney
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Pratt & Whitney company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to FlightAware company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

FlightAware and Pratt & Whitney have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Pratt & Whitney company and FlightAware company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Pratt & Whitney company nor FlightAware company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Pratt & Whitney company and FlightAware company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Pratt & Whitney company nor FlightAware company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither FlightAware company nor Pratt & Whitney company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither FlightAware nor Pratt & Whitney holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither FlightAware company nor Pratt & Whitney company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Pratt & Whitney company employs more people globally than FlightAware company, reflecting its scale as a Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing.

Neither FlightAware nor Pratt & Whitney holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither FlightAware nor Pratt & Whitney holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither FlightAware nor Pratt & Whitney holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither FlightAware nor Pratt & Whitney holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither FlightAware nor Pratt & Whitney holds HIPAA certification.

Neither FlightAware nor Pratt & Whitney holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L