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

Comparison Overview

Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.
VS
ABM IndustriesABM Industries
Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.

Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.

N/A

Last Update: 18/12/2025

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://etisalatfm.com
839/1000Good

A leading UAE based facilities management provider, established over four decades ago as an in-house department providing Etisalat Telecommunication with core facilities and energy management services. In 2007 Etisalat FM became an independent company offering single st...

NAICS:5612
NAICS Definition:Facilities Support Services
Employees:1,018
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ABM Industries

ABM Industries

1 Liberty St, New York, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.abm.com
773/1000Fair

ABM is one of the world’s largest providers of integrated facility, engineering, and infrastructure solutions. Every day, our over 100,000 team members deliver essential services that make spaces cleaner, safer, and efficient, enhancing the overall occupant experience. ...

NAICS:5612
NAICS Definition:Facilities Support Services
Employees:31,364
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.

Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.

-
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
ABM Industries

ABM Industries

-
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 Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ABM Industries in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C. 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 - ABM Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ABM Industries 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...
Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.

Etisalat Facilities Management L.L.C.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ABM Industries

ABM Industries

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ABM020072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
ABM732072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-80138
SUMMARY

ClipBucket V5's web installer fails to properly validate or escape the php_cli_filepath parameter before passing it to shell execution. Unauthenticated attackers can submit a crafted POST request to the installer with a malicious php_cli_filepath value to execute arbitrary commands as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79912
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The impacted element is the function getCurrentTime of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. Performing a manipulation of the argument ntp_server results in command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79911
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The affected element is the function setSystemConfig of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Such manipulation of the argument Hostname leads to stack-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70665
SUMMARY

Doorkeeper OpenID Connect implements an OpenID Connect authentication provider for Rails applications on top of Doorkeeper. Prior to 1.10.4, the Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) endpoint persists client-supplied scopes without validating them against the server's configured scope set. Under certain conditions, this allows a self-registered client to obtain scopes beyond what the server intended to grant. In DynamicClientRegistrationController#application_params, the scopes attribute is assigned directly from params[:scope] with no validation against Doorkeeper.configuration.scopes or optional_scopes. Combined with enforce_configured_scopes being off by default and Doorkeeper's ScopeChecker prioritizing application-level scopes over server-level scopes, this creates a privilege escalation path. This issue is fixed in version 1.10.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-55805
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ("Cross-site Scripting") vulnerability in Drupal Drupal core allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Drupal core versions: from 0.0.0 to 10.6.13, from 11.3.0 to 11.3.14, from 11.4.0 to 11.4.4, from 0.0.0 to 11.0.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.1.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.2.*.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA