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

Comparison Overview

ResecurityResecurity
VS
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) CareersNaval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers
Resecurity

Resecurity

445 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, 90071, US

Last Update: 16/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://resecurity.com
100/1000Critical

Resecurity is an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles, California. The company provides next-generation ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) and ERMM (External Risk Mitigation & Management) solutions to leading Fortune 500 corporations, law enfo...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:99
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers

N/A

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

We are NAVSEA. The Force Behind the Fleet. Join us and become part of a mission-driven team, at one of the best places to work in the federal government. This NAVSEA LinkedIn page is all about connecting with talented individuals ready to make a difference through a rew...

NAICS:336414
NAICS Definition:Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:20,019
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Resecurity

Resecurity

-
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
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers

-
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)

Resecurity has 81.82% more 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)

No incidents recorded for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Resecurity (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Resecurity cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers 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...
Resecurity

Resecurity

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CISRESMICAMASERSALGIT1786868753
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
RESSON1785832464
🔒 Incident : Breach
RES1767463312
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Careers

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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