Comparison Overview

Inspectrum

VS

Egis

Inspectrum

Florijnweg 11C Velp, Gelderland 6883JN, NL
Last Update: 2025-03-15 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

Inspectrum is een inspectiebureau dat landelijk opereert. Wij zijn gespecialiseerd in het systematisch verzamelen van beheerinformatie op het gebied van vastgoed, infrastructuur en openbare ruimte. Ons bedrijf is opgericht in 1989. www.inspectrum.nl www.geocare.nl www.legitiem.nl www.jobrent.nl

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 11-50
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Egis

15 avenue du Centre, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines , undefined, 78286, FR
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

Egis is an international player active in the consulting, construction engineering and mobility service sectors. We design and operate intelligent infrastructure and buildings capable of responding to the climate emergency and helping to achieve more balanced, sustainable and resilient territorial development. With operations in 100 countries, Egis places the expertise of its 20,500 employees at the disposal of its clients and develops cutting-edge innovation accessible to all projects. Improving peopleโ€™s quality of life and supporting communities in their social and economic development, whilst drastically reducing carbon emissions and achieving vital 2050 net zero targets, thatโ€™s our purpose. Egis shareholders consist of Tikehau Capital (40%) via its T2 Energy Transition fund, Caisse des Dรฉpรดts (34%) and its partner managers and employees (26%) through Egis Partenaires and a Corporate Mutual Fund share.

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition: Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees: 12,637
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/inspectrum.jpeg
Inspectrum
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/egis.jpeg
Egis
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Inspectrum
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Egis
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Inspectrum in 2025.

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Egis in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Inspectrum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Inspectrum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Egis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Egis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/inspectrum.jpeg
Inspectrum
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/egis.jpeg
Egis
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Inspectrum company and Egis company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Egis company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Inspectrum company.

In the current year, Egis company and Inspectrum company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Egis company nor Inspectrum company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Egis company nor Inspectrum company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Egis company nor Inspectrum company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Inspectrum company nor Egis company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Egis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Inspectrum company.

Egis company employs more people globally than Inspectrum company, reflecting its scale as a Civil Engineering.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Better Auth is an authentication and authorization library for TypeScript. In versions prior to 1.3.26, unauthenticated attackers can create or modify API keys for any user by passing that user's id in the request body to the `api/auth/api-key/create` route. `session?.user ?? (authRequired ? null : { id: ctx.body.userId })`. When no session exists but `userId` is present in the request body, `authRequired` becomes false and the user object is set to the attacker-controlled ID. Server-only field validation only executes when `authRequired` is true (lines 280-295), allowing attackers to set privileged fields. No additional authentication occurs before the database operation, so the malicious payload is accepted. The same pattern exists in the update endpoint. This is a critical authentication bypass enabling full an unauthenticated attacker can generate an API key for any user and immediately gain complete authenticated access. This allows the attacker to perform any action as the victim user using the api key, potentially compromise the user data and the application depending on the victim's privileges. Version 1.3.26 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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

Allstar is a GitHub App to set and enforce security policies. In versions prior to 4.5, a vulnerability in Allstarโ€™s Reviewbot component caused inbound webhook requests to be validated against a hard-coded, shared secret. The value used for the secret token was compiled into the Allstar binary and could not be configured at runtime. In practice, this meant that every deployment using Reviewbot would validate requests with the same secret unless the operator modified source code and rebuilt the component - an expectation that is not documented and is easy to miss. All Allstar releases prior to v4.5 that include the Reviewbot code path are affected. Deployments on v4.5 and later are not affected. Those who have not enabled or exposed the Reviewbot endpoint are not exposed to this issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 4.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities with Calendar events in Liferay Portal 7.4.3.35 through 7.4.3.111, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.7, 7.4 update 35 through update 92, and 7.3 update 25 through update 36 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a userโ€™s (1) First Name, (2) Middle Name or (3) Last Name text field.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/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

Python Social Auth is a social authentication/registration mechanism. In versions prior to 5.6.0, upon authentication, the user could be associated by e-mail even if the `associate_by_email` pipeline was not included. This could lead to account compromise when a third-party authentication service does not validate provided e-mail addresses or doesn't require unique e-mail addresses. Version 5.6.0 contains a patch. As a workaround, review the authentication service policy on e-mail addresses; many will not allow exploiting this vulnerability.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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

Confidential Containers's Trustee project contains tools and components for attesting confidential guests and providing secrets to them. In versions prior to 0.15.0, the attestation-policy endpoint didn't check if the kbs-client submitting the request was actually authenticated (had the right key). This allowed any kbs-client to actually change the attestation policy. Version 0.15.0 fixes 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:H/VA:N/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