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

Comparison Overview

Royal HaskoningDHVRoyal HaskoningDHV
VS
Tetra TechTetra Tech
Royal HaskoningDHV

Royal HaskoningDHV

Laan 1914 35, Amersfoort, undefined, 3818 EX, NL

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://royalhaskoningdhv.com
775/1000Fair

Royal HaskoningDHV is an independent consulting engineering company that is dedicated to creating a positive impact on people and planet. Backed by the expertise of over 6,000 colleagues working from offices in more than 20 countries, and with more than 140 years ...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:7,628
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tetra Tech

Tetra Tech

3475 East Foothill Blvd., Pasadena, 91107, US

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tetratech.com
782/1000Fair

Tetra Tech is the leader in water, environment and sustainable infrastructure, providing high-end technical and engineering services for projects worldwide. With more than 25,000 employees working together, Tetra Tech provides clear solutions to complex problems by Lead...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:27,493
Subsidiaries:35
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Royal HaskoningDHV

Royal HaskoningDHV

-
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
Tetra Tech

Tetra Tech

-
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 Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Royal HaskoningDHV in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tetra Tech in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Royal HaskoningDHV (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Royal HaskoningDHV 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 - Tetra Tech (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tetra Tech 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...
Royal HaskoningDHV

Royal HaskoningDHV

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tetra Tech

Tetra Tech

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9