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

Comparison Overview

Boskalis NederlandBoskalis Nederland
VS
AECOMAECOM
Boskalis Nederland

Boskalis Nederland

Rosmolenweg 2, Papendrecht, 3356 LK, NL

Last Update: 16/03/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

Boskalis Nederland is als onderdeel van Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V. de business unit die actief is op de Nederlandse markt. We treden op als aannemer van omvangrijke en complexe projecten of als partner in Design & Construct opdrachten. We participeren in publ...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:905
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AECOM

AECOM

13355 Noel Road, Dallas, 75240, US

Last Update: 17/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.aecom.com
726/1000Moderate

AECOM is the global infrastructure leader, committed to delivering a better world. As a trusted professional services firm powered by deep technical abilities, we solve our clients’ complex challenges in water, environment, energy, transportation and buildings. Our team...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:61,504
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Boskalis Nederland

Boskalis Nederland

-
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
AECOM

AECOM

-
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 Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Boskalis Nederland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

AECOM has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Boskalis Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boskalis Nederland 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 - AECOM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AECOM 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...
Boskalis Nederland

Boskalis Nederland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AECOM

AECOM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AEC1789669507
🔒 Incident : Breach
AEC745072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA