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

Comparison Overview

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane DivisionNaval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division
VS
LeonardoLeonardo
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division

300 Highway 361, Crane, Indiana, 47522, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile

The mission of NSWC Crane is to provide acquisition engineering, in-service engineering and technical support for sensors, electronics, electronic warfare and special warfare weapons. NSWC Crane also works to apply component and system-level product and industrial engin...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:783
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Leonardo

Leonardo

Piazza Monte Grappa, Roma, 00195, IT

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.leonardo.com
780/1000Fair

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 ...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:37,206
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division

-
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
Leonardo

Leonardo

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Leonardo in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Leonardo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Leonardo 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...
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Leonardo

Leonardo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEO000072824

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3