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
SaabSaab
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
Saab

Saab

Olof Palmes gata 17, Stockholm, SE

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://saab.com
797/1000Fair

As a leading defence and security company, we offer solutions that range from the depths of the oceans to high in the sky, on land and in cyberspace, to keep people and society safe. Empowered by our 22,000 talented people, we constantly push the boundaries of technolo...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:19,468
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Saab

Saab

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Saab in 2026.

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 - Saab (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Saab cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
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
Saab

Saab

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2