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

Comparison Overview

Concord Engineering Group, Inc.Concord Engineering Group, Inc.
VS
SaipemSaipem
Concord Engineering Group, Inc.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc.

520 S. Burnt Mill Rd., Voorhees, 08043, US

Last Update: 12/02/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. is a full-service engineering, energy consulting, construction management and commissioning firm. Concord was established in 1989 by Michael Fischette and other investors. Headquartered in Voorhees, NJ with other offices in Philadelphia, ...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:133
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Saipem

Saipem

Via Luigi Russolo, 5, Milan, 20138, IT

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.saipem.com
776/1000Fair

Saipem is a global leader in the engineering and construction of major projects for the energy and infrastructure sectors, both offshore and onshore. Saipem is “One Company” organized into business lines: Asset Based Services, Drilling, Energy Carriers, Offshore Wind, S...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:26,852
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Concord Engineering Group, Inc.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc.

-
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
Saipem

Saipem

-
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 Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Concord Engineering Group, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Saipem in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Concord Engineering Group, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Concord Engineering Group, Inc. 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 - Saipem (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Saipem 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...
Concord Engineering Group, Inc.

Concord Engineering Group, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Saipem

Saipem

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3