Comparison Overview

Navy Federal Credit Union

VS

Lincoln Financial

Navy Federal Credit Union

820 Follin Lane SE, Vienna, 22180, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

Navy Federal is the world’s largest credit union, with more than 15 million members, $190 billion+ in assets and 25,000+ employees. Throughout campuses in Vienna, VA Pensacola, FL and Winchester, VA, as well as 370 branches, we serve the Armed Forces, Department of Defense, Veterans and their families with world-class financial products and services. Navy Federal provides much more than a job. We provide a meaningful career experience, including a culture that is energized, engaged and committed; and fierce appreciation for our teams, who are rewarded with highly competitive pay and generous benefits and perks. Our approach to careers is simple yet powerful: Make our mission your passion. Federally insured by NCUA. Equal opportunity employer. Android™ is a trademark of Google, Inc. iPhone® is a registered trademark of Apple, Inc. iPad® is a registered trademark of Apple, Inc. App Store(SM) is a service mark of Apple, Inc. Message and data rates may apply. FORTUNE and 100 Best Companies to Work For are registered trademarks of Time Inc., and are used under license. FORTUNE and Time Inc., are not affiliated with, and do not endorse products or services of, Navy Federal Credit Union. For more info, visit navyfederal.org. Images used for representational purposes only; do not imply government endorsement. Equal Housing Lender Equal Opportunity Employer, including disability/vets

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 24,598
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Lincoln Financial

150 N. Radnor-Chester Road, Radnor, PA, US, 19087
Last Update: 2026-01-16

Lincoln Financial (NYSE: LNC) helps people to confidently plan for their version of a successful future. We focus on identifying a clear path to financial security, with products including annuities, investments, life insurance, group protection, and retirement plan services. With our 120-year track record of expertise and integrity, millions of customers trust our solutions and service to help put their goals in reach.  Your tomorrow. Our priority. For social media community guidelines: https://visit.lfg.com/4hJHCb2. Lincoln Financial Distributors, a broker-dealer, is the wholesale distribution organization of Lincoln Financial. Lincoln Financial is the marketing name for Lincoln National Corporation and its affiliates including The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Fort Wayne, IN, and Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, Syracuse, NY. Lincoln Financial℠ affiliates, their distributors, and their respective employees, representatives and/or insurance agents do not provide tax, accounting or legal advice.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 10,721
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lincolnfinancial.jpeg
Lincoln Financial
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
Navy Federal Credit Union
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lincoln Financial
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Navy Federal Credit Union in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lincoln Financial in 2026.

Incident History — Navy Federal Credit Union (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Navy Federal Credit Union cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lincoln Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lincoln Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/navy-federal-credit-union.jpeg
Navy Federal Credit Union
Incidents
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lincolnfinancial.jpeg
Lincoln Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Navy Federal Credit Union company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lincoln Financial company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Lincoln Financial company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Navy Federal Credit Union company.

In the current year, Lincoln Financial company and Navy Federal Credit Union company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lincoln Financial company nor Navy Federal Credit Union company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Lincoln Financial company and Navy Federal Credit Union company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Lincoln Financial company nor Navy Federal Credit Union company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union company nor Lincoln Financial company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union nor Lincoln Financial holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Navy Federal Credit Union company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Lincoln Financial company.

Navy Federal Credit Union company employs more people globally than Lincoln Financial company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union nor Lincoln Financial holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union nor Lincoln Financial holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union nor Lincoln Financial holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union nor Lincoln Financial holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union nor Lincoln Financial holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Navy Federal Credit Union nor Lincoln Financial 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