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

Comparison Overview

HackerHacker
VS
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)
Hacker

Hacker

1615 SE 3rd Ave, 5th Floor, Portland, Oregon, US, 97214

Last Update: 21/03/2026

View Profile
737/1000Moderate

What can our work make possible? We are a studio of 50+ united by a desire to create spaces that enrich the world – spaces that make us feel more connected to the landscape, each other and ourselves. We believe that architecture is best when it’s an honest expression...

NAICS:54131
NAICS Definition:Architectural Services
Employees:661
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

Building 3, Courtyard 5, Anding Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, CN

Last Update: 26/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.cscec.com.cn/
800/1000Good

China State Construction Engineering Corporation Ltd (in short: China Construction; Stock code: 601668), formally established on December 10, 2007, was co-initiated by four Fortune Global 500 enterprises: China State Construction Engineering Corp. (CSCEC), China Nationa...

NAICS:54131
NAICS Definition:Architectural Services
Employees:37,099
Subsidiaries:33
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hacker

Hacker

-
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
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

-
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 Architecture and Planning Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hacker in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Architecture and Planning Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC) in 2026.

Incidents

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

Hacker cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC) 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...
Hacker

Hacker

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HAC329072825
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION (CSCEC)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8