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

Comparison Overview

Saint-Gobain PAM PolskaSaint-Gobain PAM Polska
VS
Ambuja Cements LimitedAmbuja Cements Limited
Saint-Gobain PAM Polska

Saint-Gobain PAM Polska

Okrezna 16, Gliwice, śląskie, 44-100, PL

Last Update: 13/12/2025

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.sgpam.pl
746/1000Moderate

Marka Saint-Gobain PAM jest światowym liderem w produkcji kompleksowych systemów wodociągowych i kanalizacyjnych o średnicach od DN 60 do DN 2000 oraz uzbrojenia drogowego, czyli włazów, krat, wpustów z żeliwa sferoidalnego, a także instalacji wewnętrznych odwadniającyc...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:24
Subsidiaries:85
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ambuja Cements Limited

Ambuja Cements Limited

Elegant Business Park, Off Andheri Kurla Road,, Mumbai, 400059, IN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ambujacement.com
777/1000Fair

Ambuja Cements Ltd. is among the leading cement companies in India. It is a member of the Adani Group - the largest and fastest-growing portfolio of diversified sustainable businesses. Ambuja Cement is known for its hassle-free, home-building solutions. Its unique produ...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:12,091
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Saint-Gobain PAM Polska

Saint-Gobain PAM Polska

-
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
Ambuja Cements Limited

Ambuja Cements Limited

-
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 Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Saint-Gobain PAM Polska in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ambuja Cements Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Saint-Gobain PAM Polska (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Saint-Gobain PAM Polska cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ambuja Cements Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ambuja Cements Limited 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...
Saint-Gobain PAM Polska

Saint-Gobain PAM Polska

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ambuja Cements Limited

Ambuja Cements Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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