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

Comparison Overview

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)
VS
General DynamicsGeneral Dynamics
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

1333 Isaac Hull Ave SE, Washington Navy Yard, 20376, US

Last Update: 23/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.navsea.navy.mil
762/1000Fair

The Naval Sea Systems Command is comprised of command staff, headquarters directorates, affiliated Program Executive Offices (PEOs) and numerous field activities. Together, we engineer, build, buy and maintain ships, submarines and combat systems that meet the Fleet's c...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:5,662
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
General Dynamics

General Dynamics

11011 Sunset Hills Rd, Reston, 20190, US

Last Update: 22/09/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

From Gulfstream business jets and combat vehicles to nuclear-powered submarines and communications systems, people around the world depend on our products and services for their safety and security. General Dynamics is headquartered in Reston, Virginia, and employs ove...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:11,477
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

-
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
General Dynamics

General Dynamics

-
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 Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in 2026.

Incidents

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

General Dynamics has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - General Dynamics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

General Dynamics 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 Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
General Dynamics

General Dynamics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GENWHA1773052486
🔒 Incident : Breach
GEN250072925

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8