Comparison Overview

L3 Technologies

VS

Leonardo

L3 Technologies

600 Third Ave, New York, NY, US, 10016
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

With headquarters in New York City and approximately 31,000 employees worldwide, L3 develops advanced defense technologies and commercial solutions in pilot training, aviation security, night vision and EO/IR, weapons, maritime systems and space. The company reported 2018 sales of $10.2 billion. To learn more about L3, please visit the company’s website.

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 15,458
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Leonardo

Piazza Monte Grappa, Roma, Roma, 00195, IT
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Leonardo is a global security company that realises multi-domain technological capabilities in AD&S. With over 53,000 employees worldwide, the company has a significant industrial presence in Italy, the UK, Poland, and the US. It also has a commercial presence in 150 countries through subsidiaries, joint ventures and investments. A key player in major international strategic programmes, it is a technological and industrial partner of governments, defence administrations, institutions and companies. In 2023, Leonardo recorded consolidated revenues of €15.3 bn and new orders for €17.9 bn. Innovation, continuous research, digitalisation and sustainability are the pillars of its business worldwide. Stefano Pontecorvo has been the Chairman since 9 May 2023 and Roberto Cingolani has been the CEO and General Manager since 9 May 2023. Follow Leonardo on social media: ➡️https://x.com/Leonardo_live ➡️https://www.instagram.com/leonardo_company/ ➡️https://www.youtube.com/leonardocompany

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 34,551
Subsidiaries: 25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/l3.jpeg
L3 Technologies
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/leonardo_company.jpeg
Leonardo
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
L3 Technologies
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Leonardo
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 L3 Technologies in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Leonardo in 2025.

Incident History — L3 Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

L3 Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Leonardo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/l3.jpeg
L3 Technologies
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/leonardo_company.jpeg
Leonardo
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

L3 Technologies company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Leonardo company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Leonardo company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas L3 Technologies company has not reported any.

In the current year, Leonardo company and L3 Technologies company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Leonardo company nor L3 Technologies company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Leonardo company has disclosed at least one data breach, while L3 Technologies company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Leonardo company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while L3 Technologies company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither L3 Technologies company nor Leonardo company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither L3 Technologies nor Leonardo holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Leonardo company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to L3 Technologies company.

Leonardo company employs more people globally than L3 Technologies company, reflecting its scale as a Defense and Space Manufacturing.

Neither L3 Technologies nor Leonardo holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither L3 Technologies nor Leonardo holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither L3 Technologies nor Leonardo holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither L3 Technologies nor Leonardo holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither L3 Technologies nor Leonardo holds HIPAA certification.

Neither L3 Technologies nor Leonardo holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H