Comparison Overview

China Communications Construction Co., Ltd.

VS

Egis

China Communications Construction Co., Ltd.

No. 85 Deshengmenwai Street, Xicheng District BEIJING, BJ | Beijing 100088, US
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

China Communications Construction is a civil engineering company based out of BEIJING. China Communications Construction representatives, don’t miss out on opportunities to build relationships with members on LinkedIn. Claim your page, write a simple description, and share content to attract followers that can lead to new customers, brand fans, and future employees. Go here to get started: http://linkd.in/1DUpBvu

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition: Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Egis

15 avenue du Centre, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines , undefined, 78286, FR
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Egis is an international player active in the consulting, construction engineering and mobility service sectors. We design and operate intelligent infrastructure and buildings capable of responding to the climate emergency and helping to achieve more balanced, sustainable and resilient territorial development. With operations in 100 countries, Egis places the expertise of its 20,500 employees at the disposal of its clients and develops cutting-edge innovation accessible to all projects. Improving people’s quality of life and supporting communities in their social and economic development, whilst drastically reducing carbon emissions and achieving vital 2050 net zero targets, that’s our purpose. Egis shareholders consist of Tikehau Capital (40%) via its T2 Energy Transition fund, Caisse des Dépôts (34%) and its partner managers and employees (26%) through Egis Partenaires and a Corporate Mutual Fund share.

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition: Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees: 12,637
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-communications-construction-co-ltd-.jpeg
China Communications Construction Co., Ltd.
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/egis.jpeg
Egis
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
China Communications Construction Co., Ltd.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Egis
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. in 2025.

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Egis in 2025.

Incident History — China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Egis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Egis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-communications-construction-co-ltd-.jpeg
China Communications Construction Co., Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/egis.jpeg
Egis
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Egis company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Egis company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company.

In the current year, Egis company and China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Egis company nor China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Egis company nor China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Egis company nor China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company nor Egis company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. nor Egis holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Egis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company.

Egis company employs more people globally than China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. company, reflecting its scale as a Civil Engineering.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. nor Egis holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. nor Egis holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. nor Egis holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. nor Egis holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. nor Egis holds HIPAA certification.

Neither China Communications Construction Co., Ltd. nor Egis holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H