Comparison Overview

General Dynamics

VS

BAE Systems

General Dynamics

11011 Sunset Hills Rd, Reston, 20190, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

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 over 100,000 people in 43 countries around the world. At the heart of our company are our employees. We rely on their intimate knowledge of customer requirements and a unique blend of skill and innovation to develop and produce the best possible products and services. The driver that makes our company agile, and ensures our continued performance, is our culture of continuous improvement. This culture enforces a shared commitment to consistently look toward the future and to embrace change. It’s a priority at all levels of our company, with every employee engaged in finding new ways to do things faster, better and more cost-effectively, and push the boundaries of our potential.

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 10,880
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

BAE Systems

BAE Systems, London, SW1Y 5AD, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

At BAE Systems, we help our customers to stay a step ahead when protecting people and national security, critical infrastructure and vital information. We provide some of the world’s most advanced, technology-led defence, aerospace and security solutions and employ a skilled workforce of 107,000 people in more than 40 countries. From state of the art cyber threat detection to flight control systems that enable pilots to make better decisions, we never stop innovating to ensure that our customers maintain their advantage. This is a long-term commitment involving significant investments in skills. We also work closely with local partners to support economic development through the transfer of knowledge, skills and technology.

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 44,353
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/general-dynamics.jpeg
General Dynamics
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/bae-systems.jpeg
BAE Systems
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
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BAE Systems
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for General Dynamics in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for BAE Systems in 2026.

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

General Dynamics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — BAE Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BAE Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/general-dynamics.jpeg
General Dynamics
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bae-systems.jpeg
BAE Systems
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

General Dynamics company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas BAE Systems company has not reported any.

In the current year, BAE Systems company and General Dynamics company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BAE Systems company nor General Dynamics company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

General Dynamics company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other BAE Systems company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither BAE Systems company nor General Dynamics company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither General Dynamics company nor BAE Systems company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither General Dynamics nor BAE Systems holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BAE Systems company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to General Dynamics company.

BAE Systems company employs more people globally than General Dynamics company, reflecting its scale as a Defense and Space Manufacturing.

Neither General Dynamics nor BAE Systems holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither General Dynamics nor BAE Systems holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither General Dynamics nor BAE Systems holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither General Dynamics nor BAE Systems holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither General Dynamics nor BAE Systems holds HIPAA certification.

Neither General Dynamics nor BAE Systems 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