Comparison Overview

Joe Pizik Electric

VS

VINCI Construction France

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

VINCI Construction France

Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Excellent

Héritier d'une lignée d'entreprises prestigieuses et numéro 1 français du BTP, VINCI Construction France met à la disposition des donneurs d'ordres publics et des opérateurs privés ses savoir-faire d'entreprise générale et d'ensemblier, son modèle d'organisation local-global, les ressources de ses 473 agences réparties sur tout le territoire et le professionnalisme de ses 24 000 collaborateurs pour concevoir, financer, réaliser et exploiter tout projet de construction. VINCI Construction France intervient en France dans les métiers du bâtiment, du génie civil, de l'hydraulique et des métiers de spécialité. VINCI Construction France se différencie par sa capacité unique à prendre en charge des projets complexes, y compris leur financement, grâce aux synergies de métiers développées au sein de VINCI.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 10,303
Subsidiaries: 165
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Joe Pizik Electric
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vinci-construction-france.jpeg
VINCI Construction France
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Joe Pizik Electric
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
VINCI Construction France
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 VINCI Construction France in 2025.

Incident History — Joe Pizik Electric (X = Date, Y = Severity)

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

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

VINCI Construction France 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/vinci-construction-france.jpeg
VINCI Construction France
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, VINCI Construction France company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Joe Pizik Electric company.

In the current year, VINCI Construction France company and Joe Pizik Electric company have not reported any cyber incidents.

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

Neither VINCI Construction France company nor Joe Pizik Electric company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither VINCI Construction France company nor Joe Pizik Electric company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

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

VINCI Construction France 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