Comparison Overview

PCL Construction

VS

COLAS

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

COLAS

Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://allinks.click/colas

The Colas Group is a global leader in the construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure. Our mission is to design, build and maintain sustainable transport infrastructure from our local roots, around the world 🌍 Our three main activities are roads (our core business), materials and railways. Colas in numbers… 📍 50 countries across 5 continents 👷‍♀️👷‍♂️ about 58,000 employees 🚧 60,000 projects ♻ 3,000 materials production and recycling units 🚀 15.5 billion euros in revenue in 2022 Colas’ eight CSR commitments have been formalized in the ACT corporate project (Act and Commit Together), to respond to the expectations of its customers, employees, partners, users, investors and, more generally speaking, civil society as a whole. At Colas, we believe that it’s our people that drive our company forward. We strive to develop talent, and we give those who join the company the opportunity to reach their full potential throughout their careers. Because, when you join Colas, we hope you’ll make a career here.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 18,264
Subsidiaries: 119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

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/colas.jpeg
COLAS
—
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
COLAS
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 COLAS in 2025.

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

PCL Construction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — COLAS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

COLAS 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/colas.jpeg
COLAS
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

COLAS company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to PCL Construction company.

In the current year, COLAS company has reported more cyber incidents than PCL Construction company.

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

Both COLAS company and PCL Construction company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

COLAS company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while PCL Construction company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither PCL Construction nor COLAS holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

COLAS company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to PCL Construction company.

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

Neither PCL Construction nor COLAS holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor COLAS holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor COLAS holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor COLAS holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor COLAS holds HIPAA certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor COLAS 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