Comparison Overview

RTX

VS

SpaceX

RTX

Arlington, VA, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

RTX is comprised of three market-leading businesses – Collins Aerospace, Pratt & Whitney and Raytheon – working as one to answer the biggest questions and solve the hardest problems in aerospace and defense.

NAICS: 3364
NAICS Definition: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees: 134,859
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

SpaceX

Rocket Road, Hawthorne, California, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 700 and 749

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches the world’s most advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 by Elon Musk to revolutionize space transportation, with the ultimate goal of making life multiplanetary. SpaceX has gained worldwide attention for a series of historic milestones. It is the only private company ever to return a spacecraft from low-Earth orbit, which it first accomplished in December 2010. The company made history again in May 2012 when its Dragon spacecraft attached to the International Space Station, exchanged cargo payloads, and returned safely to Earth — a technically challenging feat previously accomplished only by governments. Since then Dragon has delivered cargo to and from the space station multiple times, providing regular cargo resupply missions for NASA. For more information, visit www.spacex.com.

NAICS: 3364
NAICS Definition: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees: 16,558
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rtx.jpeg
RTX
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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/spacex.jpeg
SpaceX
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
RTX
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SpaceX
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

RTX has 29.87% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

SpaceX has 29.87% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — RTX (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RTX cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — SpaceX (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SpaceX cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rtx.jpeg
RTX
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploitation of ARINC cMUSE software (shared check-in/boarding infrastructure)
Motivation: financial (ransomware), disruption
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/spacex.jpeg
SpaceX
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Access / Human Error
Motivation: Potential espionage or unauthorized data collection
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Attempt at humor
Blog: Blog

FAQ

RTX company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to SpaceX company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

SpaceX company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to RTX company.

In the current year, SpaceX and RTX have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

RTX company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while SpaceX company has not reported such incidents publicly.

SpaceX company has disclosed at least one data breach, while RTX company has not reported such incidents publicly.

SpaceX company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while RTX company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither RTX company nor SpaceX company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RTX nor SpaceX holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither RTX company nor SpaceX company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

RTX company employs more people globally than SpaceX company, reflecting its scale as a Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing.

Neither RTX nor SpaceX holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RTX nor SpaceX holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RTX nor SpaceX holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RTX nor SpaceX holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RTX nor SpaceX holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RTX nor SpaceX holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: 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: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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N