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

Comparison Overview

Dynalectric ColoradoDynalectric Colorado
VS
KEC International Ltd.KEC International Ltd.
Dynalectric Colorado

Dynalectric Colorado

345 Sheridan Boulevard, Lakewood, Colorado, 80226, US

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dyna-co.com/
751/1000Fair

Dynalectric Colorado was founded in 1951, and today we are a leading electrical contractor because we hold ourselves to a higher standard to consistently exceed your expectations. We deliver the quality you’d expect from a company with more than a half century of profes...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:63
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KEC International Ltd.

KEC International Ltd.

1st Floor, RPG House, Mumbai, 400 030, IN

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.kecrpg.com/
755/1000Fair

KEC International Limited, the flagship company of RPG Enterprises is a diversified global infrastructure Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) major, with a presence in the verticals of Power Transmission & Distribution, Railways, Civil, Urban Infrastructure, O...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:14,181
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Dynalectric Colorado

Dynalectric Colorado

-
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
KEC International Ltd.

KEC International Ltd.

-
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 Dynalectric Colorado in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KEC International Ltd. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Dynalectric Colorado (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dynalectric Colorado 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 - KEC International Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KEC International Ltd. 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...
Dynalectric Colorado

Dynalectric Colorado

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KEC International Ltd.

KEC International Ltd.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9