Comparison Overview
NAVAL GROUP
NAVAL GROUP
40-42 rue du docteur FInlay, Paris cedex 15, 75732, FR
Last Update: 29/03/2026
As an international naval defence player, Naval Group is a partner for countries seeking to maintain control of their maritime sovereignty. Naval Group develops innovative solutions to meet its customers’ requirements. The group is present throughout the entire life cyc...
Leonardo
Piazza Monte Grappa, Roma, 00195, IT
Last Update: 04/04/2026
Leonardo is a global security company that realises multi-domain technological capabilities in AD&S. With over 60,000 employees worldwide, the company has a significant industrial presence in Italy, the UK, Poland, and the US. It also has a commercial presence in 150 ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
NAVAL GROUP
Leonardo
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
NAVAL GROUP has 46.24% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Leonardo in 2026.
Incident History - NAVAL GROUP (X = Date, Y = Severity)
NAVAL GROUP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Leonardo (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Leonardo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
NAVAL GROUP
Leonardo
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.