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

Comparison Overview

Bosman BedrijvenBosman Bedrijven
VS
VINCIVINCI
Bosman Bedrijven

Bosman Bedrijven

Fokkerstraat 16, Leusden, Utrecht, 3833 LD, NL

Last Update: 28/11/2025

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Het ontwerpen, installeren, onderhouden en beheren van elektrotechnische, werktuigbouwkundige en sanitaire installaties behoort tot de basis van ons werk. Hier werken we bij Bosman Bedrijven elke dag weer vol trots en met maximale inzet aan. We bouwen aan technische ...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:142
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
VINCI

VINCI

1973, Boulevard de la Défense, Nanterre, 92000, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.vinci.com
819/1000Good

VINCI is a world leader in concessions, energy and construction, employing 280.000 people in more than 120 countries. We design, finance, build and operate infrastructure and facilities that help improve daily life and mobility for all. Because we believe in all-roun...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:13,939
Subsidiaries:134
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bosman Bedrijven

Bosman Bedrijven

-
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
VINCI

VINCI

-
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 Bosman Bedrijven in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for VINCI in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bosman Bedrijven (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bosman Bedrijven 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 - VINCI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

VINCI 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...
Bosman Bedrijven

Bosman Bedrijven

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
VINCI

VINCI

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2