Comparison Overview
Power International Holding

Power International Holding
COM 39, None, Lusail, Doha, QA, 24590
Last Update: 06/12/2025
Power International Holding (PIH) consists of a diverse portfolio of businesses from PIH’s 5 key sectors: General Contracting, Real Estate Development, Agriculture and Food Industries, Lifestyle (Hospitality, Entertainment and Catering) as well as General Services. To ...

Royal BAM Group
Runnenburg 9, Bunnik, 3981 AZ, NL
Last Update: 13/09/2026
𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗕𝗔𝗠 Royal BAM Group nv is a leading construction and property development company listed on Euronext Amsterdam with over 150 years of experience in delivering sustainable buildings, homes and infrastructure for public and private sector clients. With appro...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Power International Holding







Royal BAM Group






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Power International Holding in 2026.
Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Royal BAM Group in 2026.
Incident History - Power International Holding (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Power International Holding cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Royal BAM Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Royal BAM Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Power International Holding

Royal BAM Group
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.