Comparison Overview
Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall
Rheinmetall Platz 1, Düsseldorf, Nordrhein Westfalen, DE, 40476
Last Update: 01/04/2026
As an integrated technology group, the listed company Rheinmetall AG, headquartered in Düsseldorf, stands for a company that is as strong in substance as it is successful internationally, and that is active in various markets with an innovative range of products and ser...

Lockheed Martin
6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 20817, US
Last Update: 20/05/2026
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...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Rheinmetall







Lockheed Martin






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Rheinmetall in 2026.
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
Lockheed Martin has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Rheinmetall (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Rheinmetall cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Lockheed Martin (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lockheed Martin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Rheinmetall

Lockheed Martin
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.