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

Comparison Overview

Intermech, Inc.Intermech, Inc.
VS
Burns & McDonnellBurns & McDonnell
Intermech, Inc.

Intermech, Inc.

654 Truman Ave, Richland, washington, 99352, US

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.intermechinc.com
752/1000Fair

Intermech, Inc. has over 30 years of experience as a provider of high quality fabrication and construction solutions for rigorous and demanding industrial processes and mechanical projects. We also fabricate components that meet the exacting quality assurance requiremen...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:95
Subsidiaries:73
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: 21/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.burnsmcd.com
784/1000Fair

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
Intermech, Inc.

Intermech, Inc.

-
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 Intermech, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Burns & McDonnell in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Intermech, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intermech, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Intermech, Inc.

Intermech, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84411
SUMMARY

The web management service in affected RouterOS versions contains an integer underflow in its HTTP request body handling that is reachable before authentication. This can be leveraged by an unauthenticated network attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution as root, or to cause a denial of service, using a single crafted request.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105051
SUMMARY

Denuvo Anti-Tamper through 2026-03-04 allows bypass of a hypervisor presence check via CPUID interception (SimpleSvm.sys on AMD; hyperkd.sys and hyperhv.dll on Intel).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 1.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
0.5
CVE-2026-105050
SUMMARY

PeaZip before 11.3.0, in a non-default configuration, is vulnerable to OS command injection via a filename in an archive because "quotation character already used in the string" is mishandled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-105049
SUMMARY

Zilliz Attu before 3.0.0 has a Playground feature that does not require authentication for proxying arbitrary HTTP and HTTPS requests to URLs on the public internet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105048
SUMMARY

The Playground feature of Zilliz Attu before 3.0.0 allows SSRF (proxying of requests to private IP addresses).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2