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

Comparison Overview

Spark Power ⚡Spark Power ⚡
VS
ABM IndustriesABM Industries
Spark Power ⚡

Spark Power ⚡

1337 N Service Rd E, Oakville, L6H 1A7, CA

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://sparkpowercorp.com
651/1000Weak

Spark Power is a leading independent provider of end-to-end electrical services, operations and maintenance services, and energy sustainability solutions to the industrial, utility, and renewable asset markets in North America.

NAICS:5612
NAICS Definition:Facilities Support Services
Employees:553
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
ABM Industries

ABM Industries

1 Liberty St, New York, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.abm.com
773/1000Fair

ABM is one of the world’s largest providers of integrated facility, engineering, and infrastructure solutions. Every day, our over 100,000 team members deliver essential services that make spaces cleaner, safer, and efficient, enhancing the overall occupant experience. ...

NAICS:5612
NAICS Definition:Facilities Support Services
Employees:31,364
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Spark Power ⚡

Spark Power ⚡

-
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
ABM Industries

ABM Industries

-
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 Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Spark Power ⚡ has 24.81% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ABM Industries in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Spark Power ⚡ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Spark Power ⚡ cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ABM Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ABM Industries 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...
Spark Power ⚡

Spark Power ⚡

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TENSPA1773109868
ABM Industries

ABM Industries

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ABM020072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
ABM732072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19917
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in code-projects Online Food Order System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file delete_food_items1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument checkbox can lead to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-74767
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in its handling of DAA (Direct Access Archive) files. When extracting the internal ISO image from a DAA archive, compressed chunks were decompressed using zlib.decompress() without enforcing a limit on the resulting uncompressed data. An attacker able to submit a crafted DAA file containing highly compressed data could cause Pandora to decompress a relatively small input into a very large amount of data in memory. Because the decompressed chunks are accumulated to construct the internal ISO image, this could result in excessive memory consumption and potentially CPU exhaustion, causing the extraction worker to become unresponsive, terminate, or affect the availability of the Pandora service. The patch introduces bounded decompression using decompressobj().decompress() with max_extracted_filesize, verifies the cumulative size of decompressed chunks, and raises a dedicated ZipBomb exception when the configured limit is exceeded. Pandora then aborts extraction and reports the file as too large.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-74764
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a path traversal vulnerability in its TAR archive extraction functionality. When processing a submitted TAR archive, the extractor passed archive member names directly to Python's tarfile.TarFile.extract() without applying an extraction filter. An attacker able to submit a specially crafted TAR archive containing malicious member paths, such as paths using ../ sequences or absolute paths, could cause extracted files to be written outside the intended extraction directory. This may allow the attacker to overwrite files accessible to the Pandora worker process and could potentially result in application compromise, arbitrary code execution, or denial of service depending on the files targeted and the privileges of the Pandora process. The vulnerability is corrected by using Python's filter='data' extraction filter, which rejects or sanitizes dangerous TAR members, including paths that escape the destination directory and unsafe link targets. The weakness corresponds to MITRE's general path traversal category, which includes archive extraction cases where attacker-controlled filenames cause files to be written outside the intended directory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-73055
SUMMARY

Shescape before 2.1.15 (and 3.0.0 before 3.0.2) fails to properly escape tilde (~) characters in assignment contexts on Unix systems where the shell is explicitly configured to "sh" or true and /bin/sh points to BusyBox. Using the escape and escapeAll APIs with untrusted input in an assignment prefixed to a command, an attacker can inject a tilde payload to disclose the user's home directory location and, depending on usage, alter the location on which a command operates.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-73054
SUMMARY

SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the WebSocket endpoint caused by differential parsing of query parameters between authentication exemption and session quarantine checks. Unauthenticated attackers can craft a malicious WebSocket URI with duplicated query parameters to bypass access auth code validation and receive the live kernel event stream including document identifiers, titles, and operation logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9