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

Comparison Overview

MG DyessMG Dyess
VS
Royal BAM GroupRoyal BAM Group
MG Dyess

MG Dyess

7159 Hwy 35, Bassfield, 39421, US

Last Update: 25/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://mgdyess.com/
752/1000Fair

A family company with Quanta backing, MG Dyess was founded in 1992 in small-town Mississippi. Back then, customers in the region were looking for an open shop contractor that could handle rough, heavy terrain, and we responded to that call by building a team that could ...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:165
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Royal BAM Group

Royal BAM Group

Runnenburg 9, Bunnik, 3981 AZ, NL

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bam.com/
774/1000Fair

𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗕𝗔𝗠 Royal BAM Group nv is a leading construction and property development company listed on Euronext Amsterdam with over 150 years of experience in delivering sustainable buildings, homes and infrastructure for public and private sector clients. With appro...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:15,774
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MG Dyess

MG Dyess

-
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
Royal BAM Group

Royal BAM 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 MG Dyess in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Royal BAM Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - MG Dyess (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MG Dyess 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 - Royal BAM Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Royal BAM 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...
MG Dyess

MG Dyess

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Royal BAM Group

Royal BAM Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85893
SUMMARY

Use after free in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-69486
SUMMARY

Heap-based buffer overflow in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2025-11395
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Podman. If an attacker can pass a crafted tar archive to the `podman load` command, they can create files on the host machine with the privileges of the user running Podman.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-92259
SUMMARY

Integer overflow or wraparound vulnerability in Samsung Opensource Escargot allows attackers with write access to the bytecode-cache directory to cause a heap-based buffer overflow and denial of service via a crafted cache file. This issue affects Escargot: ac94df78493ee6fede286620d94f724e46b4d238.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-92257
SUMMARY

Netcore NR255-V version 1.5.130703 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in L7 content management pages that use eval() sinks, affecting the call board text and policy group handling components. Attackers can inject persistent script payloads through these pages to have malicious code executed in the context of other users viewing the affected content.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3