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

Comparison Overview

Ferrovial ConstructionFerrovial Construction
VS
Burns & McDonnellBurns & McDonnell
Ferrovial Construction

Ferrovial Construction

9600 Great Hills Trail, Austin, TX, 78759, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
765/1000Fair

Ferrovial Construction is a subsidiary of Ferrovial. Since our start in 1927, we have completed more than 750 projects in over 50 countries. Today, our main operative markets are the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Australia and Chile. Some...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:3,155
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

9400 Ward Pkwy, Kansas City, 64114, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.burnsmcd.com
783/1000Fair

At Burns & McDonnell, our engineers, construction professionals, architects, planners, technologists and scientists do more than plan, design and construct. With a mission unchanged since 1898 — make our clients successful — we partner with you on the toughest challenge...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:15,385
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ferrovial Construction

Ferrovial 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
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

-
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 Ferrovial Construction in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Burns & McDonnell in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ferrovial Construction (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ferrovial Construction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Burns & McDonnell (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Burns & McDonnell cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Ferrovial Construction

Ferrovial Construction

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66591
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in David Lingren Media LIbrary Assistant allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Media LIbrary Assistant: from n/a through 3.39.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-66589
SUMMARY

Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kings Plugins B2BKing allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects B2BKing: from n/a through 5.2.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-27365
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Series allows Stored XSS. This issue affects PublishPress Series: from n/a through 2.17.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-73974
SUMMARY

linuxfabrik-lib provides Python modules for database access, caching, shell execution, and API integrations, and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins uses its shared testing helper across check plugins. Prior to linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0, lib.lftest.test() treated the first or second element of a --test CSV argument as a filesystem path and returned the file contents as simulated standard output or standard error without path confinement. The hidden but production-accessible --test argument was accepted by sudo-authorized plugins, so an attacker controlling the nagios or icinga account could use check-plugins/deb-updates/deb-updates with its default QUERY=1 to disclose every line of a root-readable file. Approximately 22 other plugins exposed filtered content or a root file existence and readability oracle through the same helper, while check-plugins/network-bonding/network-bonding and check-plugins/openstack-swift-stat/openstack-swift-stat had direct read paths that bypassed the helper. The library fix confines fixture reads to the invoking plugin's unit-test directory and refuses unsafe anchors, and the plugin fix routes the two bypasses through that helper. These issues are fixed in linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-73973
SUMMARY

Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins provides monitoring plugins for Icinga, Nagios, and related systems. Prior to version 7.0.0, check-plugins/logfile/logfile accepted a free-form --filename path and opened it as root when invoked through the shipped nagios or icinga sudoers allowlist, without confining the resolved path to /var/log. An attacker who controls the monitoring account can select a root-readable file such as /etc/shadow and use --warning-regex . while leaving SUPPRESS_OUTPUT false, causing each nonempty line to be collected in warn_matches and returned through lib.base.oao(). The vulnerable flow passes the expanded scan_path directly to open(), and neither real-path containment nor an allowlist protects the sink. The same fix also confines mysql-logfile and openvpn-client-list paths, allows only documented log roots, and resolves symlinks and parent-directory traversal before checking containment. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8