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

Comparison Overview

Fugro RailData®Fugro RailData®
VS
BilfingerBilfinger
Fugro RailData®

Fugro RailData®

Goeman Borgesiuslaan 77, Utrecht, 3515ET, NL

Last Update: 14/12/2025

View Profile
746/1000Moderate

Fugro RailData® provides essential infrastructure information for rail professionals creating a 3D virtual model of the railway corridor to help you deliver efficiencies in asset management and engineering.

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Bilfinger

Bilfinger

Oskar-Meixner-Straße 1, Mannheim, 68163, DE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bilfinger.com
760/1000Fair

Bilfinger is an international industrial services provider with a vision to be the No. 1 for its customers in enhancing efficiency and sustainability within the process industry. Bilfinger’s comprehensive portfolio spans the entire value chain, from consulting & enginee...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:10,985
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fugro RailData®

Fugro RailData®

-
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
Bilfinger

Bilfinger

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fugro RailData® in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bilfinger in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fugro RailData® (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fugro RailData® 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 - Bilfinger (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bilfinger 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...
Fugro RailData®

Fugro RailData®

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Bilfinger

Bilfinger

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA