Comparison Overview

PCL Construction

VS

Mesa Holding

PCL Construction

9915-56th Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, CA, T6E 5L7
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

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

Mesa Holding

Mesa Plaza, Koru Sitesi Ihlamur Cad. No: 2 - Çayyolu Ankara, 06810, TR
Last Update: 2025-12-09

Mesa Holding, since its founding in 1969, has embraced innovation that values people while focusing on technology with a view of trust-oriented development and in line dynamics of the era. Mesa Holding’s vision aims to sustain its existing successes while believing in approaching every new project with the power of innovation and adopting to the wide range of its products with new actors. Mesa Holding also plays an important role in the contemporary world through its support in the fields of culture and art. It values the contribution to the developing world with its high rate of female employment, its principle of equality in role distribution, and its principle of being one with society in the field of social responsibility. Specialties: construction, production services, agriculture, energy, farmtech, technology, tourism, tires and rubber Group Companies: Mesa Mesken, Mesa Uluslararası, Mesa İmalat, Alabanda, Mesa Proje, Mesa Ahşap, Kosaş, Mesa Farm Tech, Mesa Tech, Mesa Las Headquarters Istanbul Founded 1969

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
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/mesa-mesken.jpeg
Mesa Holding
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
Mesa Holding
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 Mesa Holding in 2025.

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

PCL Construction cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mesa Holding (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mesa Holding 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/mesa-mesken.jpeg
Mesa Holding
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

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

Neither Mesa Holding 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 Mesa Holding company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Mesa Holding company nor PCL Construction company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither PCL Construction nor Mesa Holding holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

PCL Construction company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mesa Holding company.

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

Neither PCL Construction nor Mesa Holding holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor Mesa Holding holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor Mesa Holding holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor Mesa Holding holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor Mesa Holding holds HIPAA certification.

Neither PCL Construction nor Mesa Holding 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.

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
Description

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

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
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."

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
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.

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
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).

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