Comparison Overview

Lockheed Martin

VS

Rheinmetall

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

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall Platz 1, Düsseldorf, Nordrhein Westfalen, DE, 40476
Last Update: 2025-11-20

As an integrated technology group, the listed company Rheinmetall AG, headquartered in Düsseldorf, stands for a company that is as strong in substance as it is successful internationally, and that is active in various markets with an innovative range of products and services. Rheinmetall is a leading international systems supplier in the defence industry and at the same time a driver of forward-looking technological and industrial innovations in the civilian markets. The focus on sustainability is an integral part of Rheinmetall's strategy. The company aims to achieve CO2 neutrality by 2035. Through our work in various fields, we at Rheinmetall take on responsibility in a dramatically changing world. With our technologies, products and systems, we create the indispensable basis for peace, freedom and sustainable development: security. Find more Information about your career opportunities here: https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/rheinmetall_ag/career_1/index.php IMPRINT AND DATA PROTECTION https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/rheinmetall_ag/service/imprint/index.php

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 13,148
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

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/rheinmetall.jpeg
Rheinmetall
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
Rheinmetall
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)

No incidents recorded for Rheinmetall in 2025.

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

Lockheed Martin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Rheinmetall 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/rheinmetall.jpeg
Rheinmetall
Incidents

Date Detected: 04/2023
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 03/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Political
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Rheinmetall company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Lockheed Martin company.

In the current year, Rheinmetall company and Lockheed Martin company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Rheinmetall company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Lockheed Martin company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

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

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Rheinmetall holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Rheinmetall company and Lockheed Martin company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

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

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

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

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Rheinmetall holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Rheinmetall holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Rheinmetall holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Rheinmetall 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