Comparison Overview

J Tomlinson Limited

VS

Bouygues Construction

J Tomlinson Limited

Scimitar House, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG9 1PF, GB
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

J Tomlinson is a company built on strong foundations, with a substantial heritage and a wealth of experience in delivering integrated building solutions, from design and build through to refurbishment and repair. Our extensive portfolio of services covers the whole building lifecycle from construction to refurbishment, mechanical and electrical services, repairs and maintenance and facilities management, we offer a fully integrated solution, within social housing and the built environment. We work from a network of regional offices in the East Midlands, West Midlands and Yorkshire, each supported by our head office in Nottingham. With a commitment to customer service excellence, our teams pride themselves on delivering the very best customer experience, using a personalised approach to understand our customer’s specific needs. As a business we live and breathe our vision and values, placing our people, our customers and the communities we work in at the heart of everything we do.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 146
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Bouygues Construction

Challenger, 1 Avenue Eugène Freyssinet, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, None, FR, 78 280
Last Update: 2025-08-07 (UTC)

With 32,500 employees working in 60 countries, Bouygues Construction designs, builds and rehabilitates the infrastructures and buildings that are essential for a sustainable society. All over the world, the teams support the development of low-carbon energy production and public transport infrastructures and provide their expertise in the design, construction and renovation of buildings and neighbourhoods essential to life (health, education, work, tourism, leisure, public services, defence, etc.). The teams' commitment is based on three top priorities: safety culture, respect for human rights and ethics.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 25,265
Subsidiaries: 119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/j-tomlinson-limited.jpeg
J Tomlinson Limited
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/bouygues-construction.jpeg
Bouygues 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
Compliance Summary
J Tomlinson Limited
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Bouygues Construction
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for J Tomlinson Limited in 2025.

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bouygues Construction in 2025.

Incident History — J Tomlinson Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J Tomlinson Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Bouygues Construction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/j-tomlinson-limited.jpeg
J Tomlinson Limited
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bouygues-construction.jpeg
Bouygues Construction
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Bouygues Construction company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to J Tomlinson Limited company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Bouygues Construction company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas J Tomlinson Limited company has not reported any.

In the current year, Bouygues Construction company has reported more cyber incidents than J Tomlinson Limited company.

Neither Bouygues Construction company nor J Tomlinson Limited company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bouygues Construction company has disclosed at least one data breach, while J Tomlinson Limited company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Bouygues Construction company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while J Tomlinson Limited company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited company nor Bouygues Construction company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited nor Bouygues Construction holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Bouygues Construction company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to J Tomlinson Limited company.

Bouygues Construction company employs more people globally than J Tomlinson Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Construction.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited nor Bouygues Construction holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited nor Bouygues Construction holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited nor Bouygues Construction holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited nor Bouygues Construction holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited nor Bouygues Construction holds HIPAA certification.

Neither J Tomlinson Limited nor Bouygues Construction holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/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

Deck Mate 2 lacks a verified secure-boot chain and runtime integrity validation for its controller and display modules. Without cryptographic boot verification, an attacker with physical access can modify or replace the bootloader, kernel, or filesystem and gain persistent code execution on reboot. This weakness allows long-term firmware tampering that survives power cycles. The vendor indicates that more recent firmware updates strengthen update-chain integrity and disable physical update ports to mitigate related attack avenues.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/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

Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/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

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/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:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. In versions from 38.0.0 to before 38.0.3, the implementation of component-model related host-to-wasm trampolines in Wasmtime contained a bug where it's possible to carefully craft a component, which when called in a specific way, would crash the host with a segfault or assert failure. Wasmtime 38.0.3 has been released and is patched to fix this issue. There are no workarounds.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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