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

Comparison Overview

KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.
VS
SkanskaSkanska
KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.

KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.

Mladoboleslavská 949, Praha, 197 00, CZ

Last Update: 16/01/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Společnost KNAUF Praha s.r.o. působí na českém stavebním trhu od roku 1991. Jako součást globální skupiny Knauf Group, která má více než 320 výrobních a distribučních míst ve více než 90 zemích světa, přinášíme na český trh špičkové stavební systémy, dlouhodobé know-h...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:37
Subsidiaries:99
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Skanska

Skanska

Warfvinges väg 25 (Group Headquarters), Stockholm, SE, SE-112 74

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.skanska.com
782/1000Fair

Skanska Group uses knowledge & foresight to shape the way people live, work, and connect. More than 138 years in the making, we’re one of the world’s largest development and construction companies, with 2024 revenue totaling SEK 177 billion. We operate in select markets...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:23,492
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.

KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.

-
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
Skanska

Skanska

-
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 KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Skanska in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Skanska (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Skanska 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...
KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.

KNAUF Praha, spol. s r.o.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Skanska

Skanska

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
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: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8