Comparison Overview

Elk River, Inc

VS

RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company)

Elk River, Inc

1202 26th Street SW, Cullman, AL, 35056, US
Last Update: 2025-03-09 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

Elk River Inc. manufactures performance-designed fall protection products for the professionally trained worker.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 53
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company)

King Saud Road, Al Shamaliyah, 12621 Riyadh 379 Riyadh, Riyadh 11411, SA
Last Update: 2025-03-15 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

Al-Rashid Trading & Contacting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) was established in 1957 and expanded vigorously in the field of contracting. RTCC was awarded with contracts to build numerous houses, college campus, medical centers, infrastructure, water supply works, and railway project from renowned clients. Some of the clients (KSA) of RTCC are; Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Education, Ministry of Interior (MOI), Ministry of Water & Electricity, Saudi Railway (SAR) Ministry of Finance and Public Investment Fund (PIF). RTCC as a General Contractor is capable, anytime, of calling upon the best of materials as well as engineering and technical expertise to meet the most stringent international standards required for executing the work assigned. We undertake and execute all major trades such as Civil, Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical works. Fulfillments of RTCCs commitments timely and efficiently with QUALITY towards its clients proved her to be competent in the construction sector and became one of the leading national companies of Saudi Arabia. Projects of RTCC are at many parts of the Kingdom and are broadly classified into three sectors, namely: 1. Buildings Sector (Residential, Medical Centers, College Campus and Commercial) 2. Water Sector (Water Transmission, Pipelines and Refinement) 3. Railway Sector Empowered Teams It is an enormous effort year after year to create an Empowered Team; that was only made possible through the employment of a high caliber professionals, who are supervised by a marvels experienced senior management that have been with the company for so many years. Moreover, RTCCโ€™s philosophy in continues growth; attracted and retained some of the brightest new talents in the region to want to be part of the organization; that is comprised of multinationals, which ensured to merge the knowledge of the past with the knowledge of the future.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001+
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/elk-river-inc-.jpeg
Elk River, Inc
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rtcc.jpeg
RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company)
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Elk River, Inc
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company)
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Elk River, Inc in 2025.

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Elk River, Inc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Elk River, Inc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/elk-river-inc-.jpeg
Elk River, Inc
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rtcc.jpeg
RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Elk River, Inc company and RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Elk River, Inc company.

In the current year, RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company and Elk River, Inc company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company nor Elk River, Inc company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company nor Elk River, Inc company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company nor Elk River, Inc company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Elk River, Inc company nor RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Elk River, Inc company nor RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Elk River, Inc company employs more people globally than RTCC-Al Rashid Trading & Contracting Company (Closed Joint Stock Company) company, reflecting its scale as a Construction.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Better Auth is an authentication and authorization library for TypeScript. In versions prior to 1.3.26, unauthenticated attackers can create or modify API keys for any user by passing that user's id in the request body to the `api/auth/api-key/create` route. `session?.user ?? (authRequired ? null : { id: ctx.body.userId })`. When no session exists but `userId` is present in the request body, `authRequired` becomes false and the user object is set to the attacker-controlled ID. Server-only field validation only executes when `authRequired` is true (lines 280-295), allowing attackers to set privileged fields. No additional authentication occurs before the database operation, so the malicious payload is accepted. The same pattern exists in the update endpoint. This is a critical authentication bypass enabling full an unauthenticated attacker can generate an API key for any user and immediately gain complete authenticated access. This allows the attacker to perform any action as the victim user using the api key, potentially compromise the user data and the application depending on the victim's privileges. Version 1.3.26 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Allstar is a GitHub App to set and enforce security policies. In versions prior to 4.5, a vulnerability in Allstarโ€™s Reviewbot component caused inbound webhook requests to be validated against a hard-coded, shared secret. The value used for the secret token was compiled into the Allstar binary and could not be configured at runtime. In practice, this meant that every deployment using Reviewbot would validate requests with the same secret unless the operator modified source code and rebuilt the component - an expectation that is not documented and is easy to miss. All Allstar releases prior to v4.5 that include the Reviewbot code path are affected. Deployments on v4.5 and later are not affected. Those who have not enabled or exposed the Reviewbot endpoint are not exposed to this issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 4.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities with Calendar events in Liferay Portal 7.4.3.35 through 7.4.3.111, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.7, 7.4 update 35 through update 92, and 7.3 update 25 through update 36 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a userโ€™s (1) First Name, (2) Middle Name or (3) Last Name text field.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/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

Python Social Auth is a social authentication/registration mechanism. In versions prior to 5.6.0, upon authentication, the user could be associated by e-mail even if the `associate_by_email` pipeline was not included. This could lead to account compromise when a third-party authentication service does not validate provided e-mail addresses or doesn't require unique e-mail addresses. Version 5.6.0 contains a patch. As a workaround, review the authentication service policy on e-mail addresses; many will not allow exploiting this vulnerability.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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

Confidential Containers's Trustee project contains tools and components for attesting confidential guests and providing secrets to them. In versions prior to 0.15.0, the attestation-policy endpoint didn't check if the kbs-client submitting the request was actually authenticated (had the right key). This allowed any kbs-client to actually change the attestation policy. Version 0.15.0 fixes the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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