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 Dahlgren DivisionNaval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division
VS
United States Marine CorpsUnited States Marine Corps
Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division

Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division

6149 Welsh Rd Suite 203, Dahlgren, VA, 22448, US

Last Update: 17/12/2025

View Profile

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division originally established itself as the major testing area for naval guns and ammunition. Today, it continues to provide the military with the development and integration of warfare systems for the warfighter, warfighting ...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:1,166
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
United States Marine Corps

United States Marine Corps

3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington, 20350, US

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.marines.mil/
780/1000Fair

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces responsible for providing power projection, using the mobility of the United States Navy, by Congressional mandate, to deliver rapidly, combined-arms task forces on land, at sea, and in ...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:74,252
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division

Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren 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
United States Marine Corps

United States Marine Corps

-
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 Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

United States Marine Corps has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - United States Marine Corps (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United States Marine Corps 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 Dahlgren Division

Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
United States Marine Corps

United States Marine Corps

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MARU-SUSS1780346496

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2