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

Comparison Overview

C&M Engineering S.A.C&M Engineering S.A.
VS
Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesMitsubishi Heavy Industries
C&M Engineering S.A.

C&M Engineering S.A.

None, None, Athens, None, gr, None

Last Update: 21/03/2026

View Profile
569/1000Very Poor

C&M Engineering is a leading independent consultancy and engineering firm offering an integrated package of services which includes: - Project & Program Management - Design & Engineering - Permitting - Land Easement & Acquisition - Tendering & Contracting - Constr...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:67
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

2−3 Marunouchi 3-Chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, JP, 100-8332

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.mhi.com
814/1000Good

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Group is one of the world’s leading industrial firms. For more than 130 years, we have channeled big thinking into solutions that move the world forward – advancing the lives of everyone who shares our planet. We deliver innovative and ...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:15,576
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
C&M Engineering S.A.

C&M Engineering S.A.

-
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
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for C&M Engineering S.A. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - C&M Engineering S.A. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

C&M Engineering S.A. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 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...
C&M Engineering S.A.

C&M Engineering S.A.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
C&M946080725
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
C&M416092125
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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