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

Comparison Overview

Service & OnderhoudService & Onderhoud
VS
ALEC HoldingsALEC Holdings
Service & Onderhoud

Service & Onderhoud

N/A

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
769/1000Fair

Vanzelfsprekend zijn we er ook na de oplevering voor onze klanten. Voor onderhoud, service en beheer. Onze onderhoudsmonteurs staan dag in dag uit voor u klaar.

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:73
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ALEC Holdings

ALEC Holdings

Marina Walk, 3601 - Marina Plaza, Dubai Marina, Dubai, U.A.E., Dubai, Dubai, AE, PO Box 27639

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.alec.ae
788/1000Fair

ALEC Holdings, part of the Investment Corporate of Dubai (ICD), is a leading construction and related businesses group operating in the UAE and KSA. The company builds and provides construction solutions that set industry benchmarks for quality, safety, functionality, a...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:11,125
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Service & Onderhoud

Service & Onderhoud

-
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
ALEC Holdings

ALEC Holdings

-
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 Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Service & Onderhoud in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ALEC Holdings in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Service & Onderhoud (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Service & Onderhoud 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 - ALEC Holdings (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ALEC Holdings 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...
Service & Onderhoud

Service & Onderhoud

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ALEC Holdings

ALEC Holdings

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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