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

Comparison Overview

EMCOR Services FaganEMCOR Services Fagan
VS
Bouygues ConstructionBouygues Construction
EMCOR Services Fagan

EMCOR Services Fagan

3125 Brinkerhoff Road, Kansas City, 66115, US

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.faganco.com
751/1000Fair

Since 1958, The Fagan Company has been providing comprehensive mechanical contracting, maintenance, and refrigeration services. Specializing in design/build and design/assist, our preconstruction and construction capabilities meet the requirements of virtually any proje...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:42
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Bouygues Construction

Bouygues Construction

Challenger, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 78 280, FR

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

Bouygues Construction employs 35,600 people around the world, all driven by the greatest and most exciting responsibility of all – building for life. For our customers in more than 50 countries, we deliver much more than projects. We build to create spaces, connectio...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:24,731
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EMCOR Services Fagan

EMCOR Services Fagan

-
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 Construction

Bouygues Construction

-
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 EMCOR Services Fagan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bouygues Construction in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - EMCOR Services Fagan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EMCOR Services Fagan 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 - Bouygues Construction (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bouygues Construction 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...
EMCOR Services Fagan

EMCOR Services Fagan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Bouygues Construction

Bouygues Construction

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2