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

Comparison Overview

Lockheed MartinLockheed Martin
VS
Babcock International GroupBabcock International Group
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 20817, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

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 t...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:104,489
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Babcock International Group

Babcock International Group

33 Wigmore Street, London, W1U 1QX, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

Babcock is a FTSE 100 defence company operating in our focus countries of the UK, Australasia, Canada, France and South Africa, with exports to additional markets. Our Purpose, to create a safe and secure world, together, defines our strategy. We support and enhance o...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:16,141
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

-
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
Babcock International Group

Babcock International 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)

Lockheed Martin has 0.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Babcock International Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Lockheed Martin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Babcock International Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Babcock International Group 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...
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC1774283448
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOCULANOR1777876145
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC621092125
Babcock International Group

Babcock International Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA