Comparison Overview
United States Air Force

United States Air Force
550 D Street West, Randolph AFB, 78150-4527, US
Last Update: 16/10/2026
The mission of the United States Air Force is to fly, fight and win … in air, space and cyberspace. To achieve that mission, the Air Force has a vision of Global Vigilance, Reach and Power. That vision orbits around three core competencies: developing Airmen, technol...

NAVAL GROUP
40-42 rue du docteur FInlay, Paris cedex 15, 75732, FR
Last Update: 30/09/2026
As an international naval defence player, Naval Group is a partner for countries seeking to maintain control of their maritime sovereignty. Naval Group develops innovative solutions to meet its customers’ requirements. The group is present throughout the entire life cyc...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

United States Air Force







NAVAL GROUP






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for United States Air Force in 2026.
Incidents vs Defense and Space Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
NAVAL GROUP has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - United States Air Force (X = Date, Y = Severity)
United States Air Force cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - NAVAL GROUP (X = Date, Y = Severity)
NAVAL GROUP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

United States Air Force

NAVAL GROUP
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.