Comparison Overview

SANG

VS

U.S. Coast Guard

SANG

Saudia Arabia Saudia Arabia, 11554, SA
Last Update: 2026-01-18
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sang.gov.sa

Saudi Arabian National Guard المهمة الأساسية للحرس الوطني هي : الحفاظ على الأمن، والاستقرار الداخلي للوطن، والدفاع عن مقدّساته ومكتسباته الحضارية . ومن مـهامه الأخرى ما يلي: •حماية المنشآت الحيوية، والإستراتيجية التي يُكَلَّف بها. • المشاركة في وضع خطط الكوارث،وتنفيذها. • المشاركة في حفظ أمن ضيوف الرحمن، خلال مواسم الحج، وتقديم العون والمساعدة، والإرشاد الديني، والرعاية الصحية لهم. • تقديم الخدمات الصحيّة ، والتعليميّة، والثقافيّة، والإعلاميّة، والعناية بالجانب الإرشاديّ والتوجيهيّ، ونشر الوعي الدينيّ لمنسوبيه. • الحفاظ على التراث الوطني، ونشر الثقافة. • المساهمة في تنمية الوطن، وبناء المواطن. • التعاون مع الجهات الرسميّة في نطاق ما تنص عليه الأوامر، وما تقتضيه المصلحة العامة.

NAICS: 928
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

U.S. Coast Guard

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Washington, DC, US, 20593
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799
https://http://www.uscg.mil

Official LinkedIn account of the U.S. Coast Guard — The Nation’s premier maritime military service and leading counter-drug force, protecting the maritime domain and advancing national security in service to the American people. Semper Paratus! As one of the six branches of the Armed Forces, the U.S. Coast Guard is vital to our nation's safety and security. U.S. Coast Guard personnel are the backbone of America’s maritime security. The U.S. Coast Guard employs a topnotch civilian workforce, with more than 7,000 positions in nearly 100 locations nationwide. Search for Jobs and Internships at USAJobs.gov.

NAICS: 92811
NAICS Definition: National Security
Employees: 31,712
Subsidiaries: 28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
13
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sang.jpeg
SANG
—
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/uscoastguard.jpeg
U.S. Coast Guard
—
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
SANG
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
U.S. Coast Guard
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SANG in 2026.

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for U.S. Coast Guard in 2026.

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

SANG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — U.S. Coast Guard (X = Date, Y = Severity)

U.S. Coast Guard cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sang.jpeg
SANG
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uscoastguard.jpeg
U.S. Coast Guard
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Whistleblower Leak
Motivation: Accountability for law enforcement actions, reform of ICE and CBP
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS)
Motivation: Suppression of leaked data
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Brute-force attacks, Password spraying, MFA fatigue (push bombing)
Motivation: Retaliation for U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Financial gain (ransomware payments), Political/ideological (anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

U.S. Coast Guard company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to SANG company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

U.S. Coast Guard company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas SANG company has not reported any.

In the current year, U.S. Coast Guard company has reported more cyber incidents than SANG company.

U.S. Coast Guard company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while SANG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

U.S. Coast Guard company has disclosed at least one data breach, while SANG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

U.S. Coast Guard company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while SANG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

U.S. Coast Guard company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while SANG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither SANG nor U.S. Coast Guard holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

U.S. Coast Guard company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to SANG company.

U.S. Coast Guard company employs more people globally than SANG company, reflecting its scale as a Armed Forces.

Neither SANG nor U.S. Coast Guard holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither SANG nor U.S. Coast Guard holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither SANG nor U.S. Coast Guard holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither SANG nor U.S. Coast Guard holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither SANG nor U.S. Coast Guard holds HIPAA certification.

Neither SANG nor U.S. Coast Guard holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References