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

Comparison Overview

Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.
VS
MRVMRV
Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.

No.1099 Wanping South Road Xuhui District, SHANGHAI, 200232, CN

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.stec.net
806/1000Good

Shanghai Tunnel Engineering is a civil engineering company based out of SHANGHAI. Shanghai Tunnel Engineering representatives, don’t miss out on opportunities to build relationships with members on LinkedIn. Claim your page, write a simple description, and share content...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:651
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
MRV

MRV

Av. Prof. Mario Werneck, 621, Belo Horizonte, 30.455-610, BR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.mrv.com.br
795/1000Fair

Some 45 years ago, we set out with the ambitious goal of providing affordable housing, working to make Brazilian dreams come true. Over the last few years, we have crafted and shaped our story, becoming a brand-leading platform that offers a variety of housing solutions...

NAICS:237
NAICS Definition:Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees:17,156
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.

-
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
MRV

MRV

-
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)

Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd. has 50.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MRV in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

MRV 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...
Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co., Ltd.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SHA1777343500
MRV

MRV

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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