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
Turner Construction CompanyTurner Construction Company
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
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

66 Hudson Blvd E, New York, 10001, US

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
701/1000Moderate

Turner is a North America-based, international construction services company and is a leading builder in diverse and numerous market segments. The company has earned recognition for undertaking large, complex projects, fostering innovation, embracing emerging technologi...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:20,423
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

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
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction 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

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)

Turner Construction Company has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - Turner Construction Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Turner Construction Company 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.
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TUR1787430343
🔒 Incident : Breach
TUR147072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8