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

Comparison Overview

Commission de la construction du QuébecCommission de la construction du Québec
VS
PCL ConstructionPCL Construction
Commission de la construction du Québec

Commission de la construction du Québec

8485, ave. Christophe-Colomb, Montréal, H2M 0A7, CA

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ccq.org
741/1000Moderate

La Commission de la construction du Québec (CCQ) est un organisme public au cœur d’une des plus grandes industries au Québec: l’industrie de la construction. Elle est responsable de l'application de la Loi sur les relations de travail, la formation professionnelle et la...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:1,054
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
PCL Construction

PCL Construction

9915-56th Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, CA, T6E 5L7

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pcl.com
772/1000Fair

PCL is a group of independent construction companies that carries out work across Canada, the United States, the Caribbean, and in Australia. These diverse operations in the civil infrastructure, heavy industrial, and buildings markets are supported by a strategic prese...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:12,124
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Commission de la construction du Québec

Commission de la construction du Québec

-
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
PCL Construction

PCL Construction

-
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)

Commission de la construction du Québec has 37.11% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PCL Construction in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Commission de la construction du Québec (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Commission de la construction du Québec cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - PCL Construction (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PCL Construction 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...
Commission de la construction du Québec

Commission de la construction du Québec

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
COM1788553455
PCL Construction

PCL Construction

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PCL546072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8