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

Comparison Overview

Oldcastle InfrastructureOldcastle Infrastructure
VS
KiewitKiewit
Oldcastle Infrastructure

Oldcastle Infrastructure

7000 Central Parkway, Atlanta, GA, 30328, US

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
760/1000Fair

Oldcastle Infrastructure future-proofs North America’s infrastructure and transform communities by protecting water, enhancing communications, transporting energy, and strengthening structures. Our clear vision, powerful collaboration, and fierce drive ensure the vitali...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:1,760
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Kiewit

Kiewit

1550 Mike Fahey St., Omaha, 68102, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://kiewit.com
799/1000Fair

At Kiewit, the projects we deliver make a difference, and we offer opportunities for you to make one, too. Our construction and engineering professionals work on some of the industry’s most complex, challenging and rewarding projects – whether it’s boring tunnels throug...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:25,093
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Oldcastle Infrastructure

Oldcastle Infrastructure

-
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
Kiewit

Kiewit

-
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 Oldcastle Infrastructure in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kiewit in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Oldcastle Infrastructure (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Oldcastle Infrastructure 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 - Kiewit (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kiewit 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...
Oldcastle Infrastructure

Oldcastle Infrastructure

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Kiewit

Kiewit

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2