Comparison Overview

Safran

VS

Pratt & Whitney

Safran

2, Boulevard du général Martial Valin, Paris, FR, 75015
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.safran-group.com/

Safran is an international high-technology group, operating in the aviation (propulsion, equipment and interiors), defense and space markets. Its core purpose is to contribute to a safer, more sustainable world, where air transport is more environmentally friendly, comfortable and accessible. Safran has a global presence, with 79,000 employees and holds, alone or in partnership, world or European leadership positions in its core markets.

NAICS: 3364
NAICS Definition: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees: 57,921
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Pratt & Whitney

400 Main Street, None, East Hartford, CT, US, 06108
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://prattwhitney.com/

Pratt & Whitney, an RTX business, is a global leader in propulsion systems, powering the most advanced aircraft in the world, and we are shaping the future of aviation. Our engines help connect people, grow economies and defend freedom. Our customers depend on us to get where they’re going and back again.

NAICS: 3364
NAICS Definition: Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees: 27,741
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/safran.jpeg
Safran
—
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/pratt-&-whitney.jpeg
Pratt & Whitney
—
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
Safran
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Pratt & Whitney
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Safran in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Pratt & Whitney in 2025.

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

Safran cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Pratt & Whitney (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pratt & Whitney cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/safran.jpeg
Safran
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Misconfiguration
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pratt-&-whitney.jpeg
Pratt & Whitney
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Safran company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Pratt & Whitney company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Safran and Pratt & Whitney have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Pratt & Whitney company and Safran company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Pratt & Whitney company nor Safran company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Pratt & Whitney company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Safran company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Pratt & Whitney company nor Safran company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Safran company nor Pratt & Whitney company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Safran nor Pratt & Whitney holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Safran company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Pratt & Whitney company.

Safran company employs more people globally than Pratt & Whitney company, reflecting its scale as a Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing.

Neither Safran nor Pratt & Whitney holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Safran nor Pratt & Whitney holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Safran nor Pratt & Whitney holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Safran nor Pratt & Whitney holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Safran nor Pratt & Whitney holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Safran nor Pratt & Whitney 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.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
Description

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

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References