Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

U.S. Coast GuardU.S. Coast Guard
VS
United States Marine CorpsUnited States Marine Corps
U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Coast Guard

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Washington, 20593, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.uscg.mil
780/1000Fair

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 branch...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:31,765
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
United States Marine Corps

United States Marine Corps

3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington, 20350, US

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.marines.mil/
780/1000Fair

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces responsible for providing power projection, using the mobility of the United States Navy, by Congressional mandate, to deliver rapidly, combined-arms task forces on land, at sea, and in ...

NAICS:92811
NAICS Definition:National Security
Employees:74,252
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Coast Guard

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
United States Marine Corps

United States Marine Corps

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incidents vs Armed Forces Industry Avg (This Year)

United States Marine Corps has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

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

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - United States Marine Corps (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United States Marine Corps cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Coast Guard

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
United States Marine Corps

United States Marine Corps

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MARU-SUSS1780346496

FAQ

Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard company and United States Marine Corps company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - U.S. Coast Guard or United States Marine Corps ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - U.S. Coast Guard or United States Marine Corps ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between U.S. Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA