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

Comparison Overview

Saint-Gobain PAM NorgeSaint-Gobain PAM Norge
VS
Hassan Allam HoldingHassan Allam Holding
Saint-Gobain PAM Norge

Saint-Gobain PAM Norge

Nils Hansens vei 13, OSLO, undefined, 0667, NO

Last Update: 16/12/2025

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.pamline.no
749/1000Moderate

PAM Norge leverer duktile støpejernsrør og rørdeler til norsk vannbransje, samt bygg og vannkraftinstallasjoner. Vi er en del av det franske industrikonsernet Saint-Gobain.

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:4
Subsidiaries:85
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Hassan Allam Holding

Hassan Allam Holding

Yehia Zakaria Street, Industrial-Lot 5, Sheraton Helioplis Housing., Cairo, EG

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.hassanallam.com
787/1000Fair

Hassan Allam Holding is a leading group with a focus on engineering and construction, and investment and development. The Group operates in diverse sectors including infrastructure, energy, water, industrial, logistics, petrochemical, and complex large-scale projects in...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:11,861
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Saint-Gobain PAM Norge

Saint-Gobain PAM Norge

-
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
Hassan Allam Holding

Hassan Allam Holding

-
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 Saint-Gobain PAM Norge in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hassan Allam Holding in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Saint-Gobain PAM Norge (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Saint-Gobain PAM Norge cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Hassan Allam Holding (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hassan Allam Holding 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...
Saint-Gobain PAM Norge

Saint-Gobain PAM Norge

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hassan Allam Holding

Hassan Allam Holding

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9