Comparison Overview

Hopper Construction

VS

Royal BAM Group

Hopper Construction

None
Last Update: 2025-12-17

Hopper Construction is based in S.E. Michigan and performs various types of commercial construction. We have evolved over the years to become not just a General Contractor but a self performing general contractor, that is we eliminated the middle man. Areas of industry that we service include: Restaurants of all sizes Dr's Offices Trucking Companies Environmental Companies Private Schools Vehicle and Truck repair shops Industrial Manufacturing Retail clothing stores Grocery and Specialty Food Stores On a small scale our projects might be just a $1,000.00 or on a large scale several million dollars.

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

Royal BAM Group

Runnenburg 9, Bunnik, undefined, 3981 AZ, NL
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

🏗️ Building a Sustainable Tomorrow at BAM! As leaders in the construction industry, we are committed to pioneering sustainable practices that not only enhance our projects but also contribute to a better future for generations to come. Our strategy revolves around focusing to protect profitability, transforming to strengthen competitive advantage, and expanding for future growth. Join us in making possible by prioritising sustainability in everything we do. 🌍

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15,131
Subsidiaries: 22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hopper-construction.jpeg
Hopper 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/royal-bam-group.jpeg
Royal BAM 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
Hopper Construction
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Royal BAM Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

Hopper Construction has 4.17% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Royal BAM Group in 2025.

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

Hopper Construction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Royal BAM Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hopper-construction.jpeg
Hopper Construction
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain (ransom)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/royal-bam-group.jpeg
Royal BAM Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Hopper Construction company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Royal BAM Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Hopper Construction company has reported more cyber incidents than Royal BAM Group company.

Hopper Construction company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Royal BAM Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Royal BAM Group company nor Hopper Construction company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Royal BAM Group company nor Hopper Construction company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Hopper Construction company nor Royal BAM Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Hopper Construction nor Royal BAM Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Royal BAM Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Hopper Construction company.

Royal BAM Group company employs more people globally than Hopper Construction company, reflecting its scale as a Construction.

Neither Hopper Construction nor Royal BAM Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Hopper Construction nor Royal BAM Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Hopper Construction nor Royal BAM Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Hopper Construction nor Royal BAM Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Hopper Construction nor Royal BAM Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Hopper Construction nor Royal BAM Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N