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

Comparison Overview

ACO PolandACO Poland
VS
Turner Construction CompanyTurner Construction Company
ACO Poland

ACO Poland

Fabryczna 5, Legionowo Łajski, Woj. Mazowieckie, 05-119, PL

Last Update: 04/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aco.pl
750/1000Fair

ACO jest firmą wodno-inżynieryjną, która chroni wodę. Bazując na naszym globalnym doświadczeniu w dziedzinie odwadniania, które chroni ludzi przed wodą, coraz częściej postrzegamy naszą misję jako ochronę wody przed ludźmi. Dzięki systemowi ACO WaterCycle, ACO dostarcz...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:36
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

375 Hudson Street, New York, 10014, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

Turner is a North America-based, international construction services company and is a leading builder in diverse and numerous market segments. The company has earned recognition for undertaking large, complex projects, fostering innovation, embracing emerging technologi...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:18,335
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ACO Poland

ACO Poland

-
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
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

-
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 ACO Poland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Turner Construction Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ACO Poland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ACO Poland 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 - Turner Construction Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Turner Construction Company 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...
ACO Poland

ACO Poland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TUR147072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56355
SUMMARY

GNU Savannah Administration Savane through 3.17 uses untrusted data as part of authorization.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-56347
SUMMARY

AVideo TopMenu plugin through version 26.0 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in menu item rendering due to missing output encoding of icon classes, URLs, and text labels. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript through unescaped menu item fields that execute for all site visitors, potentially stealing session cookies or performing unauthorized actions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56346
SUMMARY

AVideo through version 25.0 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the decryptMessage.json.php endpoint that allows unauthenticated users to decrypt PGP messages. Remote attackers can submit private keys, ciphertext, and passphrases to perform server-side decryption without credentials, exposing key material to logs and enabling resource exhaustion attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56345
SUMMARY

AVideo through 29.0 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the Meet plugin's uploadRecordedVideo.json.php endpoint that derives the target users_id from the uploaded filename without verification. An attacker with knowledge of the Meet shared secret can craft a malicious file upload with a filename containing an arbitrary users_id to invoke passwordless User->login() and establish an authenticated session as any user including admin. Attackers can obtain the Meet shared secret through path-traversal vulnerabilities or timing attacks against checkToken.json.php, then POST a crafted file to uploadRecordedVideo.json.php with a filename like '1-anything.mp4' to hijack admin sessions and gain full account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-56342
SUMMARY

AVideo through version 27.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in plugin/Live/test.php that allows authenticated administrators to read arbitrary URLs via the statsURL parameter, which lacks isSSRFSafeURL() validation and accepts requests to private IP ranges and cloud metadata endpoints. Attackers can exploit this by crafting requests to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints like 169.254.169.254, and localhost to retrieve sensitive information including IAM credentials, internal service responses, and network configuration details.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3