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

Comparison Overview

NASA Technology Transfer ProgramNASA Technology Transfer Program
VS
Pratt & WhitneyPratt & Whitney
NASA Technology Transfer Program

NASA Technology Transfer Program

300 E St SW, Washington, 20546, US

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://technology.nasa.gov/
755/1000Fair

The Technology Transfer Program allows you to access many technologies that have accomplished awe inspiring feats in space, and utilize them to start, build or expand your business.

NAICS:3364
NAICS Definition:Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT, US, 06108

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

Pratt & Whitney, an RTX business, is a global leader in propulsion systems, powering the most advanced aircraft in the world, and we are shaping the future of aviation. Our engines help connect people, grow economies and defend freedom. Our customers depend on us to get...

NAICS:3364
NAICS Definition:Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees:29,731
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NASA Technology Transfer Program

NASA Technology Transfer Program

-
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
Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

-
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 Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NASA Technology Transfer Program in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pratt & Whitney in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NASA Technology Transfer Program (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NASA Technology Transfer Program cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Pratt & Whitney (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pratt & Whitney cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
NASA Technology Transfer Program

NASA Technology Transfer Program

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRA133082125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9