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

Comparison Overview

ATP Architects & Building SurveyorsATP Architects & Building Surveyors
VS
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)
ATP Architects & Building Surveyors

ATP Architects & Building Surveyors

Brooke House, Ilford, Greater London, IG1 4QR, GB

Last Update: 29/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.atpgroup.co.uk/
750/1000Fair

We are a multi-disciplinary practice of professional consultants providing architectural, surveying and project management services within the construction industry. Our teams bring a mix of talent, and this combined knowledge and experience enables us to provide a high...

NAICS:541
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:14
Subsidiaries:124
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

Building 3, Courtyard 5, Anding Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, CN

Last Update: 26/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.cscec.com.cn/
800/1000Good

China State Construction Engineering Corporation Ltd (in short: China Construction; Stock code: 601668), formally established on December 10, 2007, was co-initiated by four Fortune Global 500 enterprises: China State Construction Engineering Corp. (CSCEC), China Nationa...

NAICS:54131
NAICS Definition:Architectural Services
Employees:37,099
Subsidiaries:33
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ATP Architects & Building Surveyors

ATP Architects & Building Surveyors

-
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
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

-
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 Architecture and Planning Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ATP Architects & Building Surveyors in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Architecture and Planning Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ATP Architects & Building Surveyors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ATP Architects & Building Surveyors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC) 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...
ATP Architects & Building Surveyors

ATP Architects & Building Surveyors

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1