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

Comparison Overview

A & A Fire and SecuirtyA & A Fire and Secuirty
VS
HolcimHolcim
A & A Fire and Secuirty

A & A Fire and Secuirty

53711, US

Last Update: 26/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://aafiresecurity.com
796/1000Fair

Since 1980, A&A Fire and Security has been providing integrated protection solutions to serve the Life Safety, Security and Healthcare Communications markets. As your one source service provider, you can trust A&A to develop, implement, maintain and support all your lif...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:6
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Holcim

Holcim

Grafenauweg 10, Zug, CH, 6300

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.holcim.com/
804/1000Good

Holcim is the leading partner for sustainable construction with net sales of CHF 15.7 billion in 2025, creating value across the built environment from infrastructure and industry to buildings. We have more than 45 000 employees in 43 attractive markets – across Europ...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:41,823
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
A & A Fire and Secuirty

A & A Fire and Secuirty

-
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
Holcim

Holcim

-
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 Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A & A Fire and Secuirty in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Holcim in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - A & A Fire and Secuirty (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A & A Fire and Secuirty cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Holcim (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Holcim cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
A & A Fire and Secuirty

A & A Fire and Secuirty

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Holcim

Holcim

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2