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
COLASCOLAS
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
COLAS

COLAS

1, Rue du Colonel Pierre Avia, Paris, 75015, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://allinks.click/colas
841/1000Good

Colas, a subsidiary of the Bouygues Group, is a major player in the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure and urban development. Colas covers the entire value chain: from industrial production to service offerings, including construction work. ...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:16,508
Subsidiaries:119
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
COLAS

COLAS

-
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 COLAS 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 - COLAS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

COLAS 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...
Ferrovial Construction

Ferrovial Construction

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
COLAS

COLAS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9