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

Comparison Overview

SCPSCP
VS
FugroFugro
SCP

SCP

Colwyn Chambers, Manchester, undefined, M2 3BA, GB

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

SCP is a transportation planning and infrastructure design consultancy with offices in Edinburgh, Manchester, Leeds and London. SCP are transport consultants providing highways, traffic and transportation advice for a range of developments. SCP offer services across the...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:202
Subsidiaries:124
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Fugro

Fugro

Veurse Achterweg 10, Leidschendam, 2264 SG, NL

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fugro.com
784/1000Fair

We are the world’s leading Geo-data specialist, collecting and analysing comprehensive information about the Earth and the structures built upon it. Through integrated data acquisition, analysis and advice, we unlock insights from Geo-data to help our clients design, bu...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:10,678
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SCP

SCP

-
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
Fugro

Fugro

-
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 SCP in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fugro in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SCP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SCP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Fugro 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...
SCP

SCP

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Fugro

Fugro

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93892
SUMMARY

IBM TRIRIGA Application Platform 5.0.0 through 5.0.8 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to exposure of session tokens in the HTML response.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-93891
SUMMARY

IBM TRIRIGA Application Platform 5.0.0 through 5.0.8 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to an XML external entity (XXE) injection flaw.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-92832
SUMMARY

IBM Aspera Enterprise WebApps 1.0.0 through 1.0.6 could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information due to cleartext transmission of sensitive information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5
CVE-2026-85457
SUMMARY

IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a stack-based buffer overflow.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-84418
SUMMARY

IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 can allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to present a forged TLS certificate, intercept the connection, and capture the IAM bearer Authorization header automatically attached by the session adapter. The captured token grants full platform-scope tenant API access, enabling the attacker to read and manipulate the victim's DataStage projects, flows, assets, and pipeline definitions. This is client-side SDK code running on the user's own machine, so exploitation requires an external network interceptor rather than a co-tenant in the shared cluster.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
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