Comparison Overview

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport

VS

Air National Guard

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport

1176 Howell St., Newport, RI, US, 02841-1708
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Mission: The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport provides research, development, test and evaluation, engineering, analysis, and assessment, and fleet support capabilities for submarines, autonomous underwater systems, and offensive and defensive undersea weapon systems, and stewards existing and emerging technologies in support of undersea warfare. Executes other responsibilities as assigned by the commander, Naval Undersea Warfare Center. Vision: Undersea Superiority: today and tomorrow

NAICS: 92811
NAICS Definition: National Security
Employees: 2,865
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Air National Guard

Easton Rd, Horsham, Pennsylvania, 19044, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

The Air Guard offers a part-time position that can make a big difference in your life. We provide state-of-the-art training in a wide range of high-tech positions. The result is real-world career skills that employers are looking for - the kinds of skills that can make all the difference in today's competitive job market. The Air Guard can also help with college tuition. And since the Air Guard lets members serve part-time at a unit close to home, your son or daughter can also pursue a civilian career in their chosen field. The Air Guard also offers many federal benefits to unit members and their families, such as the Base Exchange, Commissary, use of Morale Welfare and Recreation facilities, life insurance at reduced rates, and low-cost health and dental insurance. In addition to the federal benefits listed above, each state may offer additional benefits for their members in military service. With over 140 units in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, you can serve near where you live. Prior Service- The Air National Guard is a great place to continue your military career. You can keep the military benefits you’ve come to rely on – including your retirement plan and health insurance.

NAICS: 92811
NAICS Definition: National Security
Employees: 12,284
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/goang.jpeg
Air National Guard
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
Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Air National Guard
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport in 2026.

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Air National Guard in 2026.

Incident History — Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Air National Guard (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Air National Guard cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/naval-undersea-warfare-center-newport.jpeg
Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport
Incidents
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/goang.jpeg
Air National Guard
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Air National Guard company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Air National Guard company has not reported any.

In the current year, Air National Guard company and Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Air National Guard company nor Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Air National Guard company nor Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Air National Guard company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company nor Air National Guard company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport nor Air National Guard holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company nor Air National Guard company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Air National Guard company employs more people globally than Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport company, reflecting its scale as a Armed Forces.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport nor Air National Guard holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport nor Air National Guard holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport nor Air National Guard holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport nor Air National Guard holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport nor Air National Guard holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport nor Air National Guard holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N