Comparison Overview

Granger Construction

VS

Bouygues Group

Granger Construction

6267 Aurelius Rd, Lansing, Michigan, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Since its founding as a family-owned company in 1959, Granger Construction has fostered an atmosphere of integrity, inclusiveness and ingenuity. Granger has been ranked among the top workplaces in Michigan, and places the utmost value on relationships and community. By applying the Golden Rule in our interactions with clients and employees, Granger’s workplace culture – whether in the office or on the jobsite – advances and strengthens our most valuable asset – our people. At Granger Construction, we strive to truly understand our customers’ vision and aspirations. We listen intently, collaborate closely, and consistently build results that make a positive impact on the communities they serve. Our experience across multiple market segments – from healthcare and industrial to education and government – brings to our customers a deep and broad range of expertise. This informed approach together with our guidance makes a significant difference in the ultimate success of any building endeavor.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 317
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Bouygues Group

32, Avenue Hoche, None, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75008
Last Update: 2025-08-07 (UTC)
Between 700 and 749

Founded in 1952 by Francis Bouygues, Bouygues is a diversified services group operating in over 80 countries with 200,000 employees all working to make life better every day. Its business activities in construction (Bouygues Construction, Bouygues Immobilier, Colas); energies & services (Equans); media (TF1) and telecoms (Bouygues Telecom) are able to drive growth since they all satisfy constantly changing and essential needs.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 27,647
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/granger-construction.jpeg
Granger Construction
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bouygues.jpeg
Bouygues Group
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Granger Construction
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Bouygues Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Granger Construction in 2025.

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

Bouygues Group has 7.53% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Granger Construction (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Granger Construction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Bouygues Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bouygues Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/granger-construction.jpeg
Granger Construction
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bouygues.jpeg
Bouygues Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Granger Construction company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bouygues Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Bouygues Group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Granger Construction company has not reported any.

In the current year, Bouygues Group company has reported more cyber incidents than Granger Construction company.

Neither Bouygues Group company nor Granger Construction company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bouygues Group company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Granger Construction company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Bouygues Group company nor Granger Construction company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Granger Construction company nor Bouygues Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Granger Construction nor Bouygues Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Bouygues Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Granger Construction company.

Bouygues Group company employs more people globally than Granger Construction company, reflecting its scale as a Construction.

Neither Granger Construction nor Bouygues Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Granger Construction nor Bouygues Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Granger Construction nor Bouygues Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Granger Construction nor Bouygues Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Granger Construction nor Bouygues Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Granger Construction nor Bouygues Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

Deck Mate 2 lacks a verified secure-boot chain and runtime integrity validation for its controller and display modules. Without cryptographic boot verification, an attacker with physical access can modify or replace the bootloader, kernel, or filesystem and gain persistent code execution on reboot. This weakness allows long-term firmware tampering that survives power cycles. The vendor indicates that more recent firmware updates strengthen update-chain integrity and disable physical update ports to mitigate related attack avenues.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. In versions from 38.0.0 to before 38.0.3, the implementation of component-model related host-to-wasm trampolines in Wasmtime contained a bug where it's possible to carefully craft a component, which when called in a specific way, would crash the host with a segfault or assert failure. Wasmtime 38.0.3 has been released and is patched to fix this issue. There are no workarounds.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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