What is the official website of Point.P Travaux Publics ?

The official website of Point.P Travaux Publics is http://www.pointp-tp.fr.

What is Point.P Travaux Publics's cybersecurity risk score?

Point.P Travaux Publics has an AI-generated cybersecurity risk score of 751 out of 1000, indicating a Fair security posture according to Rankiteo's assessment.

How many security incidents has Point.P Travaux Publics experienced?

According to Rankiteo, Point.P Travaux Publics currently holds 0 security badges, indicating that no recognized compliance certifications are currently verified for the organization.

Has Point.P Travaux Publics been affected by any supply chain cyber incidents ?

According to Rankiteo, Point.P Travaux Publics has not been affected by any supply chain cyber incidents, and no incident IDs are currently listed for the organization.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics have SOC 2 Type 1 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Point.P Travaux Publics is not certified under SOC 2 Type 1.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics have SOC 2 Type 2 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Point.P Travaux Publics does not hold a SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics comply with GDPR ?

According to Rankiteo, Point.P Travaux Publics is not listed as GDPR compliant.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics have PCI DSS certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Point.P Travaux Publics does not currently maintain PCI DSS compliance.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics comply with HIPAA ?

According to Rankiteo, Point.P Travaux Publics is not compliant with HIPAA regulations.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics have ISO 27001 certification ?

According to Rankiteo,Point.P Travaux Publics is not certified under ISO 27001, indicating the absence of a formally recognized information security management framework.

Which industry does Point.P Travaux Publics operate in ?

Point.P Travaux Publics operates primarily in the Commerce de gros de matériaux de construction industry.

How many employees does Point.P Travaux Publics have ?

Point.P Travaux Publics employs approximately 1 people worldwide.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics own any subsidiaries ?

Point.P Travaux Publics presently has no subsidiaries across any sectors.

How many LinkedIn followers does Point.P Travaux Publics have ?

Point.P Travaux Publics's official LinkedIn profile has approximately 749 followers.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics have a Crunchbase profile ?

No, Point.P Travaux Publics does not have a profile on Crunchbase.

Does Point.P Travaux Publics have a LinkedIn profile ?

Yes, Point.P Travaux Publics maintains an official LinkedIn profile, which is actively utilized for branding and talent engagement, which can be accessed here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/point-p-travaux-publics.

How many cybersecurity incidents has Point.P Travaux Publics experienced ?

As of June 30, 2026, Rankiteo reports that Point.P Travaux Publics has not experienced any cybersecurity incidents.

How many peer or competitor companies does Point.P Travaux Publics have ?

Point.P Travaux Publics has an estimated 2 peer or competitor companies worldwide.

NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop

WindowsmacOSLinux

Download

Badge your company to reduce your risk score and your cyber insurance costs!

Link verified badges to your company page to build trust with insurers and customers.

Apply now and get your badge!

Internal validation & live display

Insurers and partners see a safer profile

Faster underwriting decisions

Trusted by insurers. Chosen by leaders.

Proud contributor to the Society of Actuaries.

PTP

Boost Score +25 with badge (5 left)

751

/1000

Fair

776

/1000

Fair

Point.P Travaux Publics Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

pointp-tp.fr

Add Your Compliance Badge

Leader français de la distribution des matériaux de construction pour les travaux publics. L’enseigne est le seul négoce national de matériaux plastiques, béton, fontes pour tout chantier btp.

PTP A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

Scoring History

PTP

Point.P Travaux Publics CyberSecurity News & History

Past Incidents

Attack Types

Entity

Type

Severity

Impact

Seen

Blog Details

Supply Chain Source

Incident Details

View

No data available

Loading…

A.I.

PTP Company Scoring based on AI Models

Cyber Incidents Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction

Incident Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

A.I Risk Score Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction A

Prediction B

Prediction C

Prediction D

A.I. Risk Score Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

Loading…

Underwriter Stats for PTP

Incidents vs Commerce de gros de matériaux de construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Point.P Travaux Publics in 2026.

Incidents vs All-Companies Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Point.P Travaux Publics in 2026.

Incident Types PTP vs Commerce de gros de matériaux de construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Point.P Travaux Publics in 2026.

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

Loading…

SUBSIDIARY

Point.P Travaux Publics Subsidiaries

PTP

Commerce de gros de matériaux de construction

Website: http://www.pointp-tp.fr

Company Size: 1

Saint-Gobain Distribution Bâtiment FranceWholesale Building Materials

Point.PWholesale Building Materials

DISPANO - SGDB FranceWholesale Building Materials

La Plateforme du Bâtiment - SGDB FranceWholesale Building Materials

PUM - SGDB FranceBuilding Materials

Loading…

Point.P Travaux Publics Similar Companies

Loading…

NEWS

Point.P Travaux Publics CyberSecurity News

Latest updates, reports, and threat intel affecting the global network.

Loading…

CVE

Latest

Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

CVE-2026-8023

SUMMARY

Zephyr's HTTP server (subsys/net/lib/http) provides a static-filesystem resource type (HTTP_RESOURCE_TYPE_STATIC_FS, available when CONFIG_FILE_SYSTEM is enabled) that serves files from a configured root directory. Before this fix, both the HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 front-ends placed the raw, attacker-controlled request path into client-url_buffer (assembled in on_url() for HTTP/1 and copied verbatim from the :path pseudo-header for HTTP/2) without resolving ./.. segments. The static-FS handler then built the on-disk filename by directly concatenating the configured root with that raw URL (snprintk(fname, ..., "%s%s", static_fs_detail-fs_path, client-url_buffer) at http_server_http1.c:603 and http_server_http2.c:490) and opened it with fs_open(fname, FS_O_READ). Because the handler is reached via wildcard/leading-dir (fnmatch FNM_LEADING_DIR) or fallback resource matching, a request such as GET /<prefix/../../<file is dispatched to the handler and, after the underlying filesystem (e.g. LittleFS/FAT) resolves the .. segments, escapes the configured web root, letting an unauthenticated remote client read arbitrary readable files on the mounted volume (information disclosure). The HTTP server requires no TLS or authentication to reach this path. The fix adds http_server_remove_dot_segments(), which canonicalizes the path portion of the URL before resource lookup in both protocol handlers, neutralizing the traversal. Affects releases v4.0.0 through v4.4.0 for deployments that register a static-filesystem resource.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

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:H/I:N/A:N

Impact Score

3.6

Exploitability

3.9

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-7656

SUMMARY

The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery handlers in subsys/net/ip/ipv6_nbr.c (handle_ra_input, handle_ns_input, handle_na_input) used an incorrect boolean expression that combined the RFC 4861 validity checks with the ICMPv6 code check using the wrong operator precedence: the form was '((length/hop/source/target checks) && (icmp_hdr-code != 0))'. Because every legitimate ND message carries ICMPv6 code 0, an attacker setting code == 0 (the normal value) caused the entire predicate to evaluate false, so the packet was never dropped and all of the other checks were silently skipped. The bypassed checks include the mandatory Hop Limit == 255 verification (which proves an ND packet originated on-link and was not forwarded) and, for Router Advertisements, the requirement that the source be a link-local address, as well as multicast-target sanity checks. As a result, an adjacent on-link attacker — and, because the Hop-Limit-255 guard is bypassed, potentially a remote/off-link attacker whose packets would otherwise be rejected — can have forged Router Advertisement, Neighbor Solicitation, and Neighbor Advertisement messages accepted. A forged RA lets the attacker reconfigure the victim's default router, on-link prefixes (SLAAC), MTU, reachable/retransmit timers, and (with CONFIG_NET_IPV6_RA_RDNSS) DNS servers, while forged NS/NA enable neighbor-cache poisoning, enabling man-in-the-middle, traffic redirection, and denial of service. The flaw is an input-validation/authentication weakness rather than a memory-safety issue: the underlying packet-parsing primitives (net_pkt_get_data, net_pkt_read, net_pkt_skip) are independently bounds-safe and the validated 'length' is the true buffer length, so skipping the length check causes no out-of-bounds access. The defect has existed since the logic was introduced in 2018 and shipped in all releases through v4.4.0; it is fixed by splitting the condition so any failing check drops the packet.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)

cvss3

Base Score: 8.1

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H

Impact Score

5.2

Exploitability

2.8

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-51219

SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the HighPriorityASDUQueue_hasUnconfirmedIMessages function of lib60870 v2.3.3 to v2.3.6 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted payload.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: )

Impact Score

Exploitability

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-51218

SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the TS7Worker::PerformFunctionWrite() function (/core/s7_server.cpp) of snap7 v1.4.3 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted packet.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: )

Impact Score

Exploitability

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-10648

SUMMARY

mcumgr_serial_process_frag() in subsys/mgmt/mcumgr/transport/src/serial_util.c calls net_buf_reset() on the result of smp_packet_alloc() before checking it for NULL. smp_packet_alloc() uses net_buf_alloc(K_NO_WAIT) against the shared MCUmgr packet pool (CONFIG_MCUMGR_TRANSPORT_NETBUF_COUNT, default 4), which returns NULL when the pool is exhausted. In default builds the __ASSERT_NO_MSG in net_buf_reset is a no-op, so net_buf_simple_reset writes through the NULL pointer (buf->len = 0; buf->data = buf->__buf), causing a fault/crash. The fragment data reaches this code from attacker-controlled bytes on the MCUmgr serial/UART/shell-console transports (smp_uart.c, smp_raw_uart.c, smp_shell.c), and a fresh buffer is allocated at the start of essentially every new packet. An attacker on the serial/console link can flood the transport to drive the 4-entry buffer pool to exhaustion and induce the NULL dereference, crashing the device (denial of service). The defect was introduced after the original MCUmgr rework and shipped in Zephyr v4.4.0. The fix moves the NULL check ahead of net_buf_reset.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)

cvss3

Base Score: 6.2

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Impact Score

3.6

Exploitability

2.5

REFERENCES

Loading…

API

Access Data Using Our API

Get company history

curl -i -X GET 'https://api.rankiteo.com/underwriter-getcompany-history?
linkedin_id=axa' -H 'apikey: YOUR_API_KEY_HERE'

Try It API Documentation Rapid

MEASURE

What Do We Measure ?

Incident

Finding

Grade

Digital Assets

Every week, Rankiteo analyzes billions of signals to give organizations a sharper, faster view of emerging risks. With deeper, more actionable intelligence at their fingertips, security teams can outpace threat actors, respond instantly to Zero-Day attacks, and dramatically shrink their risk exposure window.

These are some of the factors we use to calculate the overall score:

Network SecurityIdentify exposed access points, detect misconfigured SSL certificates, and uncover vulnerabilities across the network infrastructure.

SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)Gain visibility into the software components used within an organization to detect vulnerabilities, manage risk, and ensure supply chain security.

CMDB (Configuration Management Database)Monitor and manage all IT assets and their configurations to ensure accurate, real-time visibility across the company's technology environment.

Threat IntelligenceLeverage real-time insights on active threats, malware campaigns, and emerging vulnerabilities to proactively defend against evolving cyberattacks.

Rankiteo

By Rankiteo

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

View on G2.com

Rankiteo is a unified scoring and risk platform that analyzes billions of signals weekly to help organizations gain faster, more actionable insights into emerging threats. Empowering teams to outpace adversaries and reduce exposure.

View latest plans →View all security reports →

MILESTONEG

Users
Love Us

Loading…