Comparison Overview

Quebe Holdings, Inc.

VS

Burns & McDonnell

Quebe Holdings, Inc.

1985 FOUNDERS DR, Dayton, Ohio, US, 45420
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 700 and 749

Quebe Holdings, Inc. business units operate in a dynamic and competitive construction environment. We are committed to meeting the high service level expectations of our customers and do so with a knowledgeable, flexible, and engaged workforce. Everything we do is with this customer focus in mind, from safety management services to employee education.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 11
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Burns & McDonnell

undefined, Kansas City, MO, 64114, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

At Burns & McDonnell, our engineers, construction professionals, architects, planners, technologists and scientists do more than plan, design and construct. With a mission unchanged since 1898 — make our clients successful — we partner with you on the toughest challenges, constantly working to make the world an amazing place. Each professional brings an ownership mentality to projects at our 100% employee-owned firm, which has safety performance among the top 5% of AEC firms. As dedicated owners, we work through challenges until they’re resolved, meeting or exceeding our clients’ goals. We apply this commitment to our communities, too. We live and work in the same cities you call home, so we share a passion to keep them strong and healthy. From fundraising events and community cleanups to educational outreach and mentorship — especially when it comes to sharing our passion for STEM — our professionals work to make our communities thrive.

NAICS: 23
NAICS Definition: Construction
Employees: 14,158
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Quebe Holdings, Inc.
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/burns-&-mcdonnell.jpeg
Burns & McDonnell
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Quebe Holdings, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Burns & McDonnell
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Quebe Holdings, Inc. in 2025.

Incidents vs Construction Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Burns & McDonnell in 2025.

Incident History — Quebe Holdings, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Quebe Holdings, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Burns & McDonnell (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Burns & McDonnell cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Quebe Holdings, Inc.
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External System Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/burns-&-mcdonnell.jpeg
Burns & McDonnell
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Burns & McDonnell company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Quebe Holdings, Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Quebe Holdings, Inc. company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Burns & McDonnell company has not reported any.

In the current year, Burns & McDonnell company and Quebe Holdings, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Burns & McDonnell company nor Quebe Holdings, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Quebe Holdings, Inc. company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Burns & McDonnell company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Burns & McDonnell company nor Quebe Holdings, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. company nor Burns & McDonnell company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. nor Burns & McDonnell holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Burns & McDonnell company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Quebe Holdings, Inc. company.

Burns & McDonnell company employs more people globally than Quebe Holdings, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Construction.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. nor Burns & McDonnell holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. nor Burns & McDonnell holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. nor Burns & McDonnell holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. nor Burns & McDonnell holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. nor Burns & McDonnell holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Quebe Holdings, Inc. nor Burns & McDonnell holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H