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

Comparison Overview

Trojan Construction GroupTrojan Construction Group
VS
COLASCOLAS
Trojan Construction Group

Trojan Construction Group

PO BOX 111059, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, AE, 0000000

Last Update: 14/03/2026

View Profile
773/1000Fair

Trojan Construction Group ranked as the #1 construction group in the UAE and the first in the Middle East to achieve an "A" rating in the MSCI ESG assessment. We are a subsidiary of Alpha Dhabi Holding PJSC, consisting of several industry-leading companies dedicated to ...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:3,723
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
COLAS

COLAS

1, Rue du Colonel Pierre Avia, Paris, 75015, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://allinks.click/colas
841/1000Good

Colas, a subsidiary of the Bouygues Group, is a major player in the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure and urban development. Colas covers the entire value chain: from industrial production to service offerings, including construction work. ...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:16,508
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Trojan Construction Group

Trojan Construction Group

-
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
COLAS

COLAS

-
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 Trojan Construction Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for COLAS in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Trojan Construction Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Trojan Construction Group 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 - COLAS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

COLAS 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...
Trojan Construction Group

Trojan Construction Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
COLAS

COLAS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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