Comparison Overview

Lockheed Martin

VS

Saab

Lockheed Martin

6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, US, 20817
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.lockheedmartin.com

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
View Profile

Saab

Olof Palmes gata 17, Stockholm, SE
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://saab.com

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 technology to create a safer, more sustainable and more equitable world. We design, manufacture and maintain advanced systems in aeronautics, weapons, command and control, sensors and underwater systems. We are headquartered in Sweden and have major operations all over the world and are part of the domestic defence capability of several nations.

NAICS: 336414
NAICS Definition: Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 19,309
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/saab.jpeg
Saab
—
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
Saab
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 Saab in 2025.

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

Lockheed Martin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Saab 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/saab.jpeg
Saab
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Lockheed Martin company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Saab company has not reported any.

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

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

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

Lockheed Martin company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Saab company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Saab holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Saab holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Saab holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Saab holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lockheed Martin nor Saab holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References