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

Comparison Overview

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.
VS
NAVAL GROUPNAVAL GROUP
FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.

Oğulbey Mahallesi Kumludere Caddesi No:11, Ankara, 06780, TR

Last Update: 14/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fnss.com.tr
757/1000Fair

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş., is a globally recognized company that specializes in designing and producing wheeled and tracked armoured combat vehicles as well as combat engineering vehicles, turrets and sustainability solutions. As the solution provider of choice of us...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:876
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
NAVAL GROUP

NAVAL GROUP

40-42 rue du docteur FInlay, Paris cedex 15, 75732, FR

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.naval-group.com
681/1000Weak

As an international naval defence player, Naval Group is a partner for countries seeking to maintain control of their maritime sovereignty. Naval Group develops innovative solutions to meet its customers’ requirements. The group is present throughout the entire life cyc...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:12,283
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.

-
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
NAVAL GROUP

NAVAL GROUP

-
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 FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş. in 2026.

Incidents

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

NAVAL GROUP has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş. 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 - NAVAL GROUP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAVAL GROUP 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...
FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.Ş.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
NAVAL GROUP

NAVAL GROUP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FREITASPANAV1774060009
🔒 Incident : Breach
NAV403092125
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NAV545072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
1.8