Comparison Overview

E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd.

VS

Engineering 350

E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd.

Chester Street, Birmingham, undefined, B6 4AP, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Manufacturing heat exchangers and oil coolers for industrial and commercial applications for over 100 years. Supplying heat exchangers to the arduous marine environment has enabled Bowman to build exceptionally reliable heat exchangers for land based duties including hydraulic oil systems, units for Co-generation / Combined Heat & Power (CHP), waste heat recovery applications, oil coolers for mining equipment, swimming pool heating and other industries where quality and reliability is paramount.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Engineering 350

256 Moulton Street, San Francisco, 94123, US
Last Update: 2025-11-03

We are a collaborative, interdisciplinary firm of innovative building services engineers and consultants. Our goal is to seek solutions that find an optimum balance between environmental benefit, social well being and financial viability both for the client and the global community. In every project, we encourage the architectural and engineering teams to understand and explore the unique challenges presented by the design brief. We use energy modeling in the early stages of design to communicate concepts and facilitate understanding of the interplay of daylight, solar radiation, thermal comfort, ventilation, and acoustics. We understand that early collaboration with owner, architect and wider design team and community will lead to successful and enduring buildings and communities valued by all stakeholders. Our building system recommendations result from this collaboration and respond to the desired architectural expression.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 10
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/e-j-bowman-birmingham-ltd-.jpeg
E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd.
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/engineering-350.jpeg
Engineering 350
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Engineering 350
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. in 2025.

Incidents vs Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Engineering 350 in 2025.

Incident History — E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Engineering 350 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Engineering 350 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/e-j-bowman-birmingham-ltd-.jpeg
E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/engineering-350.jpeg
Engineering 350
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Engineering 350 company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Engineering 350 company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company.

In the current year, Engineering 350 company and E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Engineering 350 company nor E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Engineering 350 company nor E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Engineering 350 company nor E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company nor Engineering 350 company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. nor Engineering 350 holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company nor Engineering 350 company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. company employs more people globally than Engineering 350 company, reflecting its scale as a Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. nor Engineering 350 holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. nor Engineering 350 holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. nor Engineering 350 holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. nor Engineering 350 holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. nor Engineering 350 holds HIPAA certification.

Neither E. J. Bowman (Birmingham) Ltd. nor Engineering 350 holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H