Comparison Overview

Israel Defense Forces

VS

US Navy

Israel Defense Forces

1 HaKirya, Tel Aviv, 6473209, IL
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is the military of the State of Israel, responsible for the nation's defense and security. Founded in 1948, the IDF ranks among the most battle-tested armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in six major wars. At the age of 18, men and women are required to do mandatory military service in one of the IDF's three branches - Ground Forces, Air Force, and Navy. The Israel Defense Forces is unique in its inclusion of mandatory conscription of women. Men and women of all ranks serve side by side in various positions such as pilots, captains, combat soldiers, intelligence, doctors, technicians and much more. This national service brings together Israelis from all sectors of society, religions and backgrounds. The IDF is considered to be one of the world's most technologically-advanced militaries and contributes greatly to Israel's thriving culture of tech start-ups and cutting-edge innovation.

NAICS: 92811
NAICS Definition: National Security
Employees: 11,813
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

US Navy

1200 Navy Pentagon, Washington, 20350, US
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 750 and 799

The United States is a maritime nation, and the U.S. Navy protects America at sea. Alongside our allies and partners, we defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free. Our nation is engaged in long-term competition. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S. Navy must remain prepared to execute our timeless role, as directed by Congress and the President.

NAICS: 92811
NAICS Definition: National Security
Employees: 161,815
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
4

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/israeldefenseforces.jpeg
Israel Defense Forces
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
Israel Defense Forces
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
US Navy
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Israel Defense Forces in 2026.

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for US Navy in 2026.

Incident History — Israel Defense Forces (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Israel Defense Forces cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — US Navy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

US Navy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/israeldefenseforces.jpeg
Israel Defense Forces
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/us-navy.jpeg
US Navy
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Disclosure of Information
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Threat
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

US Navy company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Israel Defense Forces company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

US Navy company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Israel Defense Forces company has not reported any.

In the current year, US Navy company and Israel Defense Forces company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither US Navy company nor Israel Defense Forces company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

US Navy company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Israel Defense Forces company has not reported such incidents publicly.

US Navy company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Israel Defense Forces company has not reported such incidents publicly.

US Navy company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Israel Defense Forces company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Israel Defense Forces nor US Navy holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

US Navy company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Israel Defense Forces company.

US Navy company employs more people globally than Israel Defense Forces company, reflecting its scale as a Armed Forces.

Neither Israel Defense Forces nor US Navy holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Israel Defense Forces nor US Navy holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Israel Defense Forces nor US Navy holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Israel Defense Forces nor US Navy holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Israel Defense Forces nor US Navy holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Israel Defense Forces nor US Navy 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