Comparison Overview

General Dynamics Information Technology

VS

CDW

General Dynamics Information Technology

Falls Church, Virginia, US, 22042
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

GDIT is a global technology and professional services company that delivers solutions, technology and mission services to every major agency across the U.S. government, defense and intelligence community. Our 30,000 experts extract the power of technology to create immediate value and deliver solutions at the edge of innovation. We operate across 50+ countries worldwide, offering leading capabilities in digital modernization, AI/ML, Cloud, Cyber and application development. GDIT is part of General Dynamics, a global aerospace and defense company. We have shared our clients’ sense of purpose for over half a century and have a unique understanding of their missions, complex environments, and a rapidly changing world. Together with our clients, we strive to create a safer, smarter world by harnessing the power of deep expertise and advanced technology.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 26,089
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

CDW

200 N. Milwaukee Ave., Vernon Hills, 60061, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

At CDW, we know how to make technology work so people can do great things. Our experts bring a full-stack, full-lifestyle approach with custom solutions, services and relationships to bring your vision to life. Through decades of experience, scale, and deep industry expertise, we deliver the full promise of what technology can do to help you reach your goals and drive innovation. Partner with CDW, and together, let’s Make amazing happen. A Fortune 500 company and member of the S&P 500 Index, CDW helps its customers to navigate an increasingly complex IT market and maximize return on their technology investments. For more information about CDW, please visit www.CDW.com.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 18,115
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gdit.jpeg
General Dynamics Information Technology
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/cdw.jpeg
CDW
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
General Dynamics Information Technology
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CDW
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for General Dynamics Information Technology in 2026.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CDW in 2026.

Incident History — General Dynamics Information Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

General Dynamics Information Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

CDW cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gdit.jpeg
General Dynamics Information Technology
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cdw.jpeg
CDW
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CDW company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to General Dynamics Information Technology company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

General Dynamics Information Technology company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CDW company has not reported any.

In the current year, CDW company and General Dynamics Information Technology company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CDW company nor General Dynamics Information Technology company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither CDW company nor General Dynamics Information Technology company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither CDW company nor General Dynamics Information Technology company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

General Dynamics Information Technology company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while CDW company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither General Dynamics Information Technology nor CDW holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CDW company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to General Dynamics Information Technology company.

General Dynamics Information Technology company employs more people globally than CDW company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither General Dynamics Information Technology nor CDW holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither General Dynamics Information Technology nor CDW holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither General Dynamics Information Technology nor CDW holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither General Dynamics Information Technology nor CDW holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither General Dynamics Information Technology nor CDW holds HIPAA certification.

Neither General Dynamics Information Technology nor CDW holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N