Comparison Overview

PCL Construction

VS

ALEC Holdings

PCL Construction

9915-56th Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, CA, T6E 5L7
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pcl.com

PCL is a group of independent construction companies that carries out work across Canada, the United States, the Caribbean, and in Australia. These diverse operations in the civil infrastructure, heavy industrial, and buildings markets are supported by a strategic presence in 31 major centers. PCL is 100% employee-owned. Watch us build at www.pcl.com

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 11,853
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

ALEC Holdings

Marina Walk, Dubai, PO Box 27639, AE
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.alec.ae

ALEC Holdings, part of the Investment Corporate of Dubai (ICD), is a leading construction and related businesses group operating in the UAE and KSA. The company builds and provides construction solutions that set industry benchmarks for quality, safety, functionality, and aesthetics. ALEC Holdings offers its clients complete turnkey solutions in construction, MEP, fit-out, marine, oil & gas, modular construction, energy efficiency and solar projects, heavy equipment rental, technology systems, data centers and asset maintenance. With these capabilities, the company successfully serves a diverse range of sectors including airports, retail, hotels & resorts, high-rise buildings, and themed projects.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 10,308
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pcl-construction.jpeg
PCL Construction
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/alecholdings.jpeg
ALEC Holdings
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
PCL Construction
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
ALEC Holdings
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PCL Construction in 2025.

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ALEC Holdings in 2025.

Incident History — PCL Construction (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PCL Construction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — ALEC Holdings (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ALEC Holdings cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pcl-construction.jpeg
PCL Construction
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/alecholdings.jpeg
ALEC Holdings
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

ALEC Holdings company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to PCL Construction company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

PCL Construction company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas ALEC Holdings company has not reported any.

In the current year, ALEC Holdings company and PCL Construction company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither ALEC Holdings company nor PCL Construction company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

PCL Construction company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other ALEC Holdings company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither ALEC Holdings company nor PCL Construction company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither PCL Construction company nor ALEC Holdings company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither PCL Construction nor ALEC Holdings holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ALEC Holdings company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to PCL Construction company.

PCL Construction company employs more people globally than ALEC Holdings company, reflecting its scale as a Construction.

Neither PCL Construction nor ALEC Holdings holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor ALEC Holdings holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor ALEC Holdings holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor ALEC Holdings holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor ALEC Holdings holds HIPAA certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor ALEC Holdings holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References