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

Comparison Overview

General DynamicsGeneral Dynamics
VS
Lockheed MartinLockheed Martin
General Dynamics

General Dynamics

11011 Sunset Hills Rd, Reston, 20190, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
786/1000Fair

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...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:10,880
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 20817, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

The world relies on what we do. Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, with offices across the U.S. and around the globe, our team delivers solutions that strengthen national security, shape industries and push engineering and technology to new levels. We collaborate t...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:104,489
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
General Dynamics

General Dynamics

-
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
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

-
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)

General Dynamics has 42.53% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Lockheed Martin has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

General Dynamics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Lockheed Martin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lockheed Martin 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...
General Dynamics

General Dynamics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GENWHA1773052486
🔒 Incident : Breach
GEN250072925
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC1774283448
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOCULANOR1777876145
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC621092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9