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

Comparison Overview

G+H GroupG+H Group
VS
Burns & McDonnellBurns & McDonnell
G+H Group

G+H Group

Janderstr. 3, Mannheim, 68199, DE

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.guh-group.com
753/1000Fair

Die G+H Group ist einer der marktführenden Dienstleister im Gewerk Wärme-, Kälte-, Schall- und Brandschutz (WKSB) sowie in den Bereichen Sanierung und Tür- und Torservice. Unsere Philosophie ist eine dezentrale Struktur mit dem Fokus auf eigene Mitarbeiter und Mitarbeit...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:244
Subsidiaries:28
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: 13/09/2026

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:16,522
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
G+H Group

G+H Group

-
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 G+H Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Burns & McDonnell in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - G+H Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

G+H Group 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 - 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...
G+H Group

G+H Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93436
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to properly clean up decode-side metadata for rejected inference requests in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Remote attackers can submit requests with max_tokens=0 to exhaust decode-worker memory without bound until the worker restarts.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-17
UPDATED
Date2026-09-17
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93435
SUMMARY

redis-parser through 3.0.0 contains a denial of service vulnerability in the RESP protocol parser that allows malicious Redis endpoints to crash the client process through unbounded recursion on nested arrays. Attackers can send crafted RESP byte streams with repeated array headers that exhaust the V8 call stack, causing an uncaught RangeError that terminates the Node.js process without triggering error handling callbacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-17
UPDATED
Date2026-09-17
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-87701
SUMMARY

Improper neutralization of special elements in output used by a downstream component ('injection') in Azure Cosmos DB allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-17
UPDATED
Date2026-09-17
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-2026-85917
SUMMARY

Server-side request forgery (ssrf) in Azure AI Foundry allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-17
UPDATED
Date2026-09-17
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
CVE-2026-85889
SUMMARY

Missing authentication for critical function in Azure AI Foundry allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-17
UPDATED
Date2026-09-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9