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

Comparison Overview

SETAOSETAO
VS
VINCIVINCI
SETAO

SETAO

01 BP 925 Abidjan, Abidjan, 22 rue des foreurs Zone 3 , 00225, CI

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.setao.ci/
765/1000Fair

𝐁𝐨𝐮𝐲𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 : 𝐁𝐚̂𝐭𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐚 𝐯𝐢𝐞 Chez Bouygues Construction, nous sommes 32 500 collaborateurs à travers le monde, tous animés par la plus grande et la plus enthousiasmante des responsabilités : bâtir pour la vie. Pour nos cli...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:86
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
VINCI

VINCI

1973, Boulevard de la Défense, Nanterre, 92000, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.vinci.com
819/1000Good

VINCI is a world leader in concessions, energy and construction, employing 280.000 people in more than 120 countries. We design, finance, build and operate infrastructure and facilities that help improve daily life and mobility for all. Because we believe in all-roun...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:13,939
Subsidiaries:134
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SETAO

SETAO

-
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
VINCI

VINCI

-
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 SETAO in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for VINCI in 2026.

Incidents

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

SETAO 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 - VINCI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

VINCI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
SETAO

SETAO

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
VINCI

VINCI

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1