Comparison Overview

Joe Pizik Electric

VS

Bouygues Construction

Joe Pizik Electric

375 Oliver Dr, Troy, Michigan 48084-5433, US
Last Update: 2025-03-06 (UTC)

Excellent

None

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 8
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Bouygues Construction

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

Excellent

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/defaultcompany.jpeg
Joe Pizik Electric
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/bouygues-construction.jpeg
Bouygues Construction
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Joe Pizik Electric
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 Joe Pizik Electric in 2025.

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bouygues Construction in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Joe Pizik Electric (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Joe Pizik Electric cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” 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/defaultcompany.jpeg
Joe Pizik Electric
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

Both Joe Pizik Electric company and Bouygues Construction company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Bouygues Construction company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Joe Pizik Electric company has not reported any.

In the current year, Bouygues Construction company has reported more cyber incidents than Joe Pizik Electric company.

Neither Bouygues Construction company nor Joe Pizik Electric company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bouygues Construction company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Joe Pizik Electric company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Bouygues Construction company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Joe Pizik Electric company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Joe Pizik Electric company nor Bouygues Construction company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Bouygues Construction company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Joe Pizik Electric company.

Bouygues Construction company employs more people globally than Joe Pizik Electric company, reflecting its scale as a Construction.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

MinIO is a high-performance object storage system. In all versions prior to RELEASE.2025-10-15T17-29-55Z, a privilege escalation vulnerability allows service accounts and STS (Security Token Service) accounts with restricted session policies to bypass their inline policy restrictions when performing operations on their own account, specifically when creating new service accounts for the same user. The vulnerability exists in the IAM policy validation logic where the code incorrectly relied on the DenyOnly argument when validating session policies for restricted accounts. When a session policy is present, the system should validate that the action is allowed by the session policy, not just that it is not denied. An attacker with valid credentials for a restricted service or STS account can create a new service account for itself without policy restrictions, resulting in a new service account with full parent privileges instead of being restricted by the inline policy. This allows the attacker to access buckets and objects beyond their intended restrictions and modify, delete, or create objects outside their authorized scope. The vulnerability is fixed in version RELEASE.2025-10-15T17-29-55Z.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy. Envoy versions earlier than 1.36.2, 1.35.6, 1.34.10, and 1.33.12 contain a use-after-free vulnerability in the Lua filter. When a Lua script executing in the response phase rewrites a response body so that its size exceeds the configured per_connection_buffer_limit_bytes (default 1MB), Envoy generates a local reply whose headers override the original response headers, leaving dangling references and causing a crash. This results in denial of service. Updating to versions 1.36.2, 1.35.6, 1.34.10, or 1.33.12 fixes the issue. Increasing per_connection_buffer_limit_bytes (and for HTTP/2 the initial_stream_window_size) or increasing per_request_buffer_limit_bytes / request_body_buffer_limit can reduce the likelihood of triggering the condition but does not correct the underlying memory safety flaw.

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

In Xpdf 4.05 (and earlier), a PDF object loop in a CMap, via the "UseCMap" entry, leads to infinite recursion and a stack overflow.

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

A vulnerability was identified in NucleoidAI Nucleoid up to 0.7.10. The impacted element is the function extension.apply of the file /src/cluster.ts of the component Outbound Request Handler. Such manipulation of the argument https/ip/port/path/headers leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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

HCL Traveler for Microsoft Outlook (HTMO) is susceptible to a credential leakage which could allow an attacker to access other computers or applications.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N