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

Comparison Overview

L3Harris TechnologiesL3Harris Technologies
VS
NAVAL GROUPNAVAL GROUP
L3Harris Technologies

L3Harris Technologies

1025 W. NASA Boulevard, Melbourne, 32919, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.l3harris.com/
716/1000Moderate

L3Harris Technologies is the Trusted Disruptor in the defense industry. With customers’ mission-critical needs always in mind, our employees deliver end-to-end technology solutions connecting the space, air, land, sea and cyber domains in the interest of national securi...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:30,302
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
NAVAL GROUP

NAVAL GROUP

40-42 rue du docteur FInlay, Paris cedex 15, 75732, FR

Last Update: 30/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.naval-group.com
693/1000Weak

As an international naval defence player, Naval Group is a partner for countries seeking to maintain control of their maritime sovereignty. Naval Group develops innovative solutions to meet its customers’ requirements. The group is present throughout the entire life cyc...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:12,283
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
L3Harris Technologies

L3Harris Technologies

-
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
NAVAL GROUP

NAVAL GROUP

-
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)

No incidents recorded for L3Harris Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

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

NAVAL GROUP has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - L3Harris Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

L3Harris Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - NAVAL GROUP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAVAL GROUP 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...
L3Harris Technologies

L3Harris Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
L3H5902259103025
🔒 Incident : Breach
APPL3H1773147416
🔒 Incident : Breach
L3H4092140103025
NAVAL GROUP

NAVAL GROUP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FREITASPANAV1774060009
🔒 Incident : Breach
NAV403092125
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NAV545072725

FAQ

Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between L3Harris Technologies company and NAVAL GROUP company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between L3Harris Technologies and NAVAL GROUP, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between L3Harris Technologies and NAVAL GROUP, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - L3Harris Technologies or NAVAL GROUP ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - L3Harris Technologies or NAVAL GROUP ?
Between L3Harris Technologies and NAVAL GROUP, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between L3Harris Technologies and NAVAL GROUP, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8