Comparison Overview

Lockheed Martin

VS

Aselsan

Lockheed Martin

6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, US, 20817
Last Update: 2025-11-27

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 to win. We put our customers first. And we perform with excellence. The best careers are built at Lockheed Martin. Join us.

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 102,502
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Aselsan

296. Cadde 16, Mehmet Akif Ersoy, Ankara, 06200, TR
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

ASELSAN is a company of Turkish Armed Forces Foundation, established in 1975 in order to meet the communication needs of the Turkish Armed Forces by national means. Currently ​74,20% of the shares are owned by the Foundation whereas the remaining 25,8% runs in İstanbul Borsa stock market. ASELSAN is the largest defense electronics company of Turkey whose capability/product portfolio comprises communication and information technologies, radar and electronic warfare, electro-optics, avionics, unmanned systems, land, naval and weapon systems, air defence and missile systems, command and control systems, transportation, security, traffic, automation and medical systems. Today ASELSAN has become an indigenous products exporting company, investing in international markets through various cooperation models with local partners and listed as one of the top 100 defence companies of the world (Defense News Top 100).

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 16,729
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lockheed-martin.jpeg
Lockheed Martin
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/aselsan.jpeg
Aselsan
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
Lockheed Martin
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Aselsan
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 Lockheed Martin in 2025.

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

Aselsan has 49.25% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Lockheed Martin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Aselsan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lockheed-martin.jpeg
Lockheed Martin
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: DDoS
Motivation: Hacktivism, Disruption
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aselsan.jpeg
Aselsan
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Spear-phishing email with malicious .url file
Motivation: Cyber espionage
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Lockheed Martin company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Aselsan company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Lockheed Martin and Aselsan have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Aselsan company has reported more cyber incidents than Lockheed Martin company.

Neither Aselsan company nor Lockheed Martin company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Aselsan company nor Lockheed Martin company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Both Aselsan company and Lockheed Martin company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither Lockheed Martin company nor Aselsan company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Aselsan holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lockheed Martin company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Aselsan company.

Lockheed Martin company employs more people globally than Aselsan company, reflecting its scale as a Defense and Space Manufacturing.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Aselsan holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Aselsan holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Aselsan holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Aselsan holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Aselsan holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Aselsan 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