Comparison Overview

US Army

VS

Air Force Space Command

US Army

1500 Army Navy Dr, Arlington, Virginia, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

Welcome to the official U.S. Army LinkedIn page. The U.S. Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. If you're looking for news about the U.S. Army, visit http://www.army.mil/ For information about U.S. Army career opportunities https://www.goarmy.com/?iom=BNL7-22-0029_N_OSOC_OCPA_LI_ocpagen_xx_xx.

NAICS: 92811
NAICS Definition: National Security
Employees: 346,445
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Air Force Space Command

Air Force Space Command Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs 80914, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Air Force Space Command, activated Sept. 1, 1982, is a major command with headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. AFSPC provides military focused space and cyberspace capabilities with a global perspective to the joint warfighting team. People More than 40,000 professionals assigned to 134 locations worldwide. Organization Fourteenth Air Force is located at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., and provides space capabilities for the joint fight through the operational missions of spacelift; position, navigation and timing; satellite communications; missile warning and space control. Twenty-fourth Air Force is located at Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland, Texas, and its mission is to provide combatant commanders with trained and ready cyber forces which plan and conduct cyberspace operations. The command extends, operates, maintains and defends its assigned portions of the Department of Defense network to provide capabilities in, through and from cyberspace. The Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles AFB, Calif., designs and acquires all Air Force and most Department of Defense space systems. It oversees launches, completes on-orbit checkouts and then turns systems over to user agencies. It supports the Program Executive Office for Space on the Global Positioning, Defense Satellite Communications and MILSTAR systems. SMC also supports the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, Defense Meteorological Satellite and Defense Support programs and the Space-Based Infrared System. AFSPC major installations include: Schriever, Peterson and Buckley Air Force Bases in Colorado; Los Angeles and Vandenberg Air Force Bases in California; and Patrick AFB in Florida. Major AFSPC units also reside on bases managed by other commands in New Mexico, Texas, Illinois, Virginia and Georgia. AFSPC manages many smaller installations and geographically separated units in North Dakota, Alaska, Hawaii and across the globe.

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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/us-army.jpeg
US Army
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/air-force-space-command.jpeg
Air Force Space Command
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
US Army
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Air Force Space Command
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for US Army in 2025.

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Air Force Space Command in 2025.

Incident History — US Army (X = Date, Y = Severity)

US Army cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Air Force Space Command (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Air Force Space Command cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/us-army.jpeg
US Army
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2018
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2018
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Basic Security Vulnerability
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2015
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Website Hacking
Motivation: Political
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/air-force-space-command.jpeg
Air Force Space Command
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

US Army company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Air Force Space Command company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

US Army company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Air Force Space Command company has not reported any.

In the current year, Air Force Space Command company and US Army company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Air Force Space Command company nor US Army company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

US Army company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Air Force Space Command company has not reported such incidents publicly.

US Army company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Air Force Space Command company has not reported such incidents publicly.

US Army company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Air Force Space Command company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither US Army nor Air Force Space Command holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

US Army company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Air Force Space Command company.

US Army company employs more people globally than Air Force Space Command company, reflecting its scale as a Armed Forces.

Neither US Army nor Air Force Space Command holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither US Army nor Air Force Space Command holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither US Army nor Air Force Space Command holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither US Army nor Air Force Space Command holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither US Army nor Air Force Space Command holds HIPAA certification.

Neither US Army nor Air Force Space Command holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H