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

Comparison Overview

Cadagua, a Ferrovial companyCadagua, a Ferrovial company
VS
AECOMAECOM
Cadagua, a Ferrovial company

Cadagua, a Ferrovial company

Gran Vía Don Diego López de Haro, 45, 8th Floor, Bilbao-Bilbo, Basque Country, ES, 48011

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://cadagua.es
756/1000Fair

We specialize in the design, construction, and operation of water treatment facilities. With almost 50 years of experience, we have offered solutions for over 400 projects, both in industrial facilities and urban environments. We aim to ensure the drinking water suppl...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:275
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AECOM

AECOM

13355 Noel Road, Dallas, 75240, US

Last Update: 17/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.aecom.com
726/1000Moderate

AECOM is the global infrastructure leader, committed to delivering a better world. As a trusted professional services firm powered by deep technical abilities, we solve our clients’ complex challenges in water, environment, energy, transportation and buildings. Our team...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:61,504
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cadagua, a Ferrovial company

Cadagua, a Ferrovial company

-
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
AECOM

AECOM

-
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 Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cadagua, a Ferrovial company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

AECOM has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Cadagua, a Ferrovial company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cadagua, a Ferrovial company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - AECOM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AECOM 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...
Cadagua, a Ferrovial company

Cadagua, a Ferrovial company

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AECOM

AECOM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AEC1789669507
🔒 Incident : Breach
AEC745072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA