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

Comparison Overview

PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville DivisionPulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division
VS
Fluor CorporationFluor Corporation
PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division

PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division

N/A

Last Update: 25/02/2026

View Profile

PulteGroup, Inc. (NYSE: PHM), based in Atlanta, Georgia, is one of America’s largest homebuilding companies with operations in more than 45 markets nationwide. We build incredible places where people can live their dreams, thanks to our inspired employees, exceptional c...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Fluor Corporation

Fluor Corporation

6700 Las Colinas Blvd., Irving, 75039, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fluor.com
774/1000Fair

Fluor Corporation is a global engineering, procurement and construction company. We work with leaders in the energy, infrastructure, life sciences, advanced technologies, mining and metals industries, as well as government agencies, to build a better world. Since our f...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:36,351
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division

PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division

-
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
Fluor Corporation

Fluor Corporation

-
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 Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fluor Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Fluor Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fluor Corporation 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...
PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division

PulteGroup Indianapolis-Louisville Division

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Fluor Corporation

Fluor Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1