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

Comparison Overview

JLL Project ManagementJLL Project Management
VS
EmaarEmaar
JLL Project Management

JLL Project Management

200 E Randolph St, Chicago, Illinois, 60601, US

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://co.jll/3MIx64T
752/1000Fair

We’re a leading professional services firm that specializes in real estate and investment management. JLL shapes the future of real estate for a better world by using the most advanced technology to create rewarding opportunities, amazing spaces, and sustainable real es...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:11
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Emaar

Emaar

Emaar Square Downtown Dubai, Dubai, 9440, AE

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.emaar.com/
804/1000Good

WHO WE ARE Emaar is a pioneer of master-planned communities in Dubai since its inception in 1997. It is listed on the Dubai Financial Market as a public joint-stock company. Building upon the legacy of our flagship Downtown Dubai creations — the iconic Burj Khalifa, Du...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:15,912
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
JLL Project Management

JLL Project Management

-
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
Emaar

Emaar

-
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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JLL Project Management in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Emaar in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - JLL Project Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JLL Project Management cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Emaar 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...
JLL Project Management

JLL Project Management

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Emaar

Emaar

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2