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

Comparison Overview

PECOPECO
VS
McDermott International, LtdMcDermott International, Ltd
PECO

PECO

118 Washington Ave, Mineral Wells, 76068, US

Last Update: 20/03/2026

View Profile

PECO is part of Parker Hannifin, Industrial Process Filtration Division. Please follow the main Parker Hannifin LI page for updates. For specific Filtration content, follow Parker Filtration Technology on LinkedIn. This page is no longer active. With over 75 years ...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:173
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
McDermott International, Ltd

McDermott International, Ltd

915 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, 77079, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mcdermott.com/
796/1000Fair

McDermott is a premier provider of engineering and construction solutions to the energy industry. Our customers trust our technology-driven approach—engineered to responsibly harness and transform global energy resources into the products the world needs for now and w...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:22,433
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PECO

PECO

-
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
McDermott International, Ltd

McDermott International, Ltd

-
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 Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PECO in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for McDermott International, Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PECO (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PECO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - McDermott International, Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McDermott International, Ltd 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...
PECO

PECO

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
McDermott International, Ltd

McDermott International, Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66591
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in David Lingren Media LIbrary Assistant allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Media LIbrary Assistant: from n/a through 3.39.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-66589
SUMMARY

Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kings Plugins B2BKing allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects B2BKing: from n/a through 5.2.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-27365
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Series allows Stored XSS. This issue affects PublishPress Series: from n/a through 2.17.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-73974
SUMMARY

linuxfabrik-lib provides Python modules for database access, caching, shell execution, and API integrations, and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins uses its shared testing helper across check plugins. Prior to linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0, lib.lftest.test() treated the first or second element of a --test CSV argument as a filesystem path and returned the file contents as simulated standard output or standard error without path confinement. The hidden but production-accessible --test argument was accepted by sudo-authorized plugins, so an attacker controlling the nagios or icinga account could use check-plugins/deb-updates/deb-updates with its default QUERY=1 to disclose every line of a root-readable file. Approximately 22 other plugins exposed filtered content or a root file existence and readability oracle through the same helper, while check-plugins/network-bonding/network-bonding and check-plugins/openstack-swift-stat/openstack-swift-stat had direct read paths that bypassed the helper. The library fix confines fixture reads to the invoking plugin's unit-test directory and refuses unsafe anchors, and the plugin fix routes the two bypasses through that helper. These issues are fixed in linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-73973
SUMMARY

Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins provides monitoring plugins for Icinga, Nagios, and related systems. Prior to version 7.0.0, check-plugins/logfile/logfile accepted a free-form --filename path and opened it as root when invoked through the shipped nagios or icinga sudoers allowlist, without confining the resolved path to /var/log. An attacker who controls the monitoring account can select a root-readable file such as /etc/shadow and use --warning-regex . while leaving SUPPRESS_OUTPUT false, causing each nonempty line to be collected in warn_matches and returned through lib.base.oao(). The vulnerable flow passes the expanded scan_path directly to open(), and neither real-path containment nor an allowlist protects the sink. The same fix also confines mysql-logfile and openvpn-client-list paths, allows only documented log roots, and resolves symlinks and parent-directory traversal before checking containment. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8