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

Comparison Overview

CPB ContractorsCPB Contractors
VS
STRABAGSTRABAG
CPB Contractors

CPB Contractors

177 Pacific Highway, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, AU

Last Update: 06/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cpbcon.com.au/
774/1000Fair

CPB Contractors is a leading major contractor, trusted to build critical and complex infrastructure across Australia and New Zealand for a more connected, sustainable future. We’re solutions-focused and put our people’s safety first. Working collaboratively with our del...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:5,778
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
STRABAG

STRABAG

Ortenburger Strasse 27, Spittal/Drau, 9800, AT

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://karriere.strabag.com
787/1000Fair

At STRABAG around 86,000 people working on progress at more than 2,400 locations worldwide. Uniqueness and individual strengths characterise both our projects and each of us as individuals. Whether its building construction, civil engineering, road construction, undergr...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:21,228
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CPB Contractors

CPB Contractors

-
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
STRABAG

STRABAG

-
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)

No incidents recorded for CPB Contractors in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for STRABAG in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CPB Contractors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CPB Contractors 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 - STRABAG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

STRABAG 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...
CPB Contractors

CPB Contractors

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
STRABAG

STRABAG

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8