Comparison Overview

China Railway Group Limited

VS

UEM Group Berhad

China Railway Group Limited

Tower A, China Railway Square, No. 69, Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, undefined, undefined, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

China Railway Group Limited is a civil engineering company based out of Beijing, China.

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition: Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees: 1,793
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

UEM Group Berhad

Jalan Stesen Sentral 5 Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 50470, MY
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

We are UEM Group Berhad (UEM Group), one of Malaysia's leading engineering-based infrastructure and services conglomerate with an established track record and global operations. We have the ability, expertise and resources to deliver and manage key infrastructure development projects and services for the public and private sectors spanning expressways, bridges, buildings, urban transits, water infrastructure, airports, hospitals, township & property development and asset & facility management services. From our beginnings in 1966, we have grown to become an international business operating in emerging and matured economies focusing on four key businesses namely Expressways, Township & Property Development, Engineering & Construction, and Asset & Facility Management.

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
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-railway-group-limited.jpeg
China Railway Group Limited
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/uem-group-berhad.jpeg
UEM Group Berhad
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 Railway Group Limited
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UEM Group Berhad
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Railway Group Limited in 2025.

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UEM Group Berhad in 2025.

Incident History — China Railway Group Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Railway Group Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — UEM Group Berhad (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UEM Group Berhad cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-railway-group-limited.jpeg
China Railway Group Limited
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uem-group-berhad.jpeg
UEM Group Berhad
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

China Railway Group Limited company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to UEM Group Berhad company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, UEM Group Berhad company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to China Railway Group Limited company.

In the current year, UEM Group Berhad company and China Railway Group Limited company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither UEM Group Berhad company nor China Railway Group Limited company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither UEM Group Berhad company nor China Railway Group Limited company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither UEM Group Berhad company nor China Railway Group Limited company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither China Railway Group Limited company nor UEM Group Berhad company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither China Railway Group Limited nor UEM Group Berhad holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither China Railway Group Limited company nor UEM Group Berhad company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

UEM Group Berhad company employs more people globally than China Railway Group Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Civil Engineering.

Neither China Railway Group Limited nor UEM Group Berhad holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither China Railway Group Limited nor UEM Group Berhad holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither China Railway Group Limited nor UEM Group Berhad holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither China Railway Group Limited nor UEM Group Berhad holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither China Railway Group Limited nor UEM Group Berhad holds HIPAA certification.

Neither China Railway Group Limited nor UEM Group Berhad 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