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

Comparison Overview

GFWAGFWA
VS
COLASCOLAS
GFWA

GFWA

113 Radium Street, Welshpool, WA, 6106, AU

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.gfwa.com.au
750/1000Fair

Established in the 1970s and operating since then as a leading geotechnical specialist contractor, GFWA is a member of Soletanche Bachy Group. This has given the company a unique status to provide a full range of optimised specialist geotechnical services based on its l...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:34
Subsidiaries:125
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
GFWA

GFWA

-
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 GFWA in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for COLAS in 2026.

Incidents

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

GFWA 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 - 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...
GFWA

GFWA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
COLAS

COLAS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1