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

Comparison Overview

Tarmac National Skills & Safety ParkTarmac National Skills & Safety Park
VS
VINCI ConstructionVINCI Construction
Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park

Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park

Tarmac Way (Off Wood Lane), Nether Langwith, Nottinghamshire, NG20 9JF, GB

Last Update: 26/10/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tarmac.com
752/1000Fair

The Park, was officially opened by HRH The Duke of Cambridge in February 2020, with room to train up to 70 people a day. The facility includes an occupational hazard area to highlight the importance of health & Safety, a road-building area that gives a controlled area t...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
VINCI Construction

VINCI Construction

5 Cours Ferdinand de Lesseps, Rueil-Malmaison, 92500, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

Premier groupe français et acteur mondial de premier plan de la construction, VINCI Construction réunit plus de 830 entreprises et près de 69000 collaborateurs dans une centaine de pays. Ses expertises s’étendent à l’ensemble des métiers du bâtiment, du génie civil, et ...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:16,805
Subsidiaries:177
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park

Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park

-
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 Construction

VINCI Construction

-
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 Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for VINCI Construction in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park 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 Construction (X = Date, Y = Severity)

VINCI Construction 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...
Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park

Tarmac National Skills & Safety Park

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
VINCI Construction

VINCI Construction

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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