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

Comparison Overview

Burns & McDonnellBurns & McDonnell
VS
Turner Construction CompanyTurner Construction Company
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

9400 Ward Pkwy, Kansas City, 64114, US

Last Update: 21/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.burnsmcd.com
784/1000Fair

At Burns & McDonnell, our engineers, construction professionals, architects, planners, technologists and scientists do more than plan, design and construct. With a mission unchanged since 1898 — make our clients successful — we partner with you on the toughest challenge...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:16,522
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

66 Hudson Blvd E, New York, 10001, US

Last Update: 21/09/2026

View Profile
702/1000Moderate

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:20,423
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

-
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 Burns & McDonnell in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incident History - Burns & McDonnell (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Burns & McDonnell 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...
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TUR1787430343
🔒 Incident : Breach
TUR147072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105222
SUMMARY

The alexpechkarev/google-maps Laravel package through 12.16 disables TLS certificate verification by default because the bundled config sets ssl_verify_peer to FALSE, which is passed to CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER. On-path attackers can present any certificate to intercept Google Maps web-service requests, steal the API key from the query string, and tamper with responses.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105221
SUMMARY

The gist RubyGem before 6.1.0 contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability that allows on-path attackers to intercept HTTPS traffic because http_connection in lib/gist.rb sets VERIFY_NONE. Attackers can present any certificate to read or modify GitHub API traffic, stealing OAuth tokens and login credentials to read and modify the victim's gists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105220
SUMMARY

Twine 2 desktop through 2.12.0 contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability in importStories() that executes markup from imported story files in the editor window. Attackers can craft a story file whose script calls the twineElectron openWithScratchFile IPC bridge to write and open a .bat file, executing code as the user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-105167
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file admin/donate.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument location can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105166
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The affected element is the function insert of the file fooddonateform.php of the component Food Donation Form. Performing a manipulation of the argument image-choice results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9