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

Comparison Overview

SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction FranceSICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France
VS
Turner Construction CompanyTurner Construction Company
SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France

SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France

N/A

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sicra-idf.fr
753/1000Fair

SICRA Île-de-France s'engage pour la réalisation de projets de logements, ainsi que de résidences hôtelières, de services et de résidences étudiantes. Ses équipes disposent des meilleurs talents rassemblés au sein d'une seule entité. Spécialistes renommés et recherchés...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:306
Subsidiaries:123
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

375 Hudson Street, New York, 10014, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

Turner is a North America-based, international construction services company and is a leading builder in diverse and numerous market segments. The company has earned recognition for undertaking large, complex projects, fostering innovation, embracing emerging technologi...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:18,335
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France

SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France

-
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
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

-
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 SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Turner Construction Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France 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 - Turner Construction Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Turner Construction Company 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...
SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France

SICRA IDF - VINCI Construction France

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Turner Construction Company

Turner Construction Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TUR147072625

FAQ

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