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

Comparison Overview

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.
VS
Bouygues GroupBouygues Group
E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

1785 Oak Rd, Snellville, 30078, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ersnell.com/
736/1000Moderate

Founded in 1923, we are a local, family-owned construction and infrastructure company dedicated to delivering excellence in every road and structure we undertake. Our rich history has established us as a trusted name in the industry, renowned for our bedrock commitments...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:348
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Bouygues Group

Bouygues Group

32, Avenue Hoche, Paris, 75008, FR

Last Update: 31/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bouygues.com/
759/1000Fair

Founded in 1952 by Francis Bouygues, Bouygues is a diversified services group operating in over 80 countries with 200,000 employees all working to make life better every day. Its business activities in construction (Bouygues Construction, Bouygues Immobilier, Colas); en...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:47,064
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

-
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
Bouygues Group

Bouygues Group

-
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 E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bouygues Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Bouygues Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bouygues Group 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...
E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

E.R. Snell Contractor, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
E-R249071625
Bouygues Group

Bouygues Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BOU352080725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2