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

Comparison Overview

Northrop GrummanNorthrop Grumman
VS
Lockheed MartinLockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman

2980 Fairview Park Dr, Falls Church, 22042, US

Last Update: 04/05/2026

View Profile
748/1000Moderate

We are a close-knit community of big thinkers collaborating to keep the world safe. Our passion, creativity and expertise bring next-level technology solutions to life in autonomous systems, cyber, C4ISR, strike, space, and logistics and modernization for our customers ...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:81,287
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 20817, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

The world relies on what we do. Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, with offices across the U.S. and around the globe, our team delivers solutions that strengthen national security, shape industries and push engineering and technology to new levels. We collaborate t...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:104,489
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman

-
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
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

-
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)

Northrop Grumman has 54.55% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Lockheed Martin has 86.92% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Northrop Grumman (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Northrop Grumman cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Lockheed Martin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lockheed Martin 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...
Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOCULANOR1777876145
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOR933072725
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC1774283448
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOCULANOR1777876145
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC621092125

FAQ

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