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

Comparison Overview

Diamond Refractory Services, LLCDiamond Refractory Services, LLC
VS
Fluor CorporationFluor Corporation
Diamond Refractory Services, LLC

Diamond Refractory Services, LLC

8412 Mosley, Houston, TX, 77075, US

Last Update: 01/03/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

Diamond Refractory specializes in the installation and repair of refractory materials for critical units in process plants. Refractory liners protect plant equipment from corrosion, erosion, and extreme temperatures. Fluid catalytic cracking units, sulfur units, acid pl...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:62
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Fluor Corporation

Fluor Corporation

6700 Las Colinas Blvd., Irving, 75039, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

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

Fluor Corporation is a global engineering, procurement and construction company. We work with leaders in the energy, infrastructure, life sciences, advanced technologies, mining and metals industries, as well as government agencies, to build a better world. Since our f...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:36,351
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Diamond Refractory Services, LLC

Diamond Refractory Services, LLC

-
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
Fluor Corporation

Fluor Corporation

-
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 Diamond Refractory Services, LLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fluor Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Diamond Refractory Services, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Diamond Refractory Services, LLC 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 - Fluor Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fluor Corporation 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...
Diamond Refractory Services, LLC

Diamond Refractory Services, LLC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Fluor Corporation

Fluor Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA