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

Comparison Overview

Mass. Electric Construction Co.Mass. Electric Construction Co.
VS
GMR GroupGMR Group
Mass. Electric Construction Co.

Mass. Electric Construction Co.

undefined, North America, US/CA, undefined, OO

Last Update: 31/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.masselec.com
755/1000Fair

Mass. Electric Construction Co. (MEC) is one of North America’s premier electrical and rail systems contractors. We are a leader in providing complex and large-scale electrical construction and maintenance services in the energy, transportation, industrial and infrastru...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:658
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
GMR Group

GMR Group

New Udaan Bhawan, New Delhi, 110037, IN

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.gmrgroup.in
781/1000Fair

GMR Group is a leading Indian infrastructure conglomerate with a diversified presence across Airports, Energy, Transportation, Urban Infrastructure, and Sports. With over two decades of experience, the Group has built world-class assets and pioneered innovations in sust...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:16,275
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mass. Electric Construction Co.

Mass. Electric Construction Co.

-
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
GMR Group

GMR Group

-
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 Mass. Electric Construction Co. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GMR Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mass. Electric Construction Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mass. Electric Construction Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - GMR Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GMR Group 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...
Mass. Electric Construction Co.

Mass. Electric Construction Co.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
GMR Group

GMR Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:N/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-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3