Comparison Overview

Fugro

VS

Ferrovial

Fugro

Veurse Achterweg 10, Leidschendam, 2264 SG, NL
Last Update: 2026-04-01
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fugro.com

We are the world’s leading Geo-data specialist, collecting and analysing comprehensive information about the Earth and the structures built upon it. Through integrated data acquisition, analysis and advice, we unlock insights from Geo-data to help our clients design, build and operate their assets in a safe, sustainable and efficient manner. Learn more about us: https://www.youtube.com/fugro https://www.facebook.com/fugro https://twitter.com/fugro https://www.instagram.com/fugro/

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition: Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees: 10,678
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Ferrovial

Amsterdam, NL
Last Update: 2026-04-04
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ferrovial.com

Ferrovial is a leading global infrastructure company transforming highways, airports, and energy around the world. Its distinctive integrated business model supports the entire lifecycle of complex projects, from design and financing to construction, operation and maintenance. The company has a global presence and employs more than 22,500 people worldwide. North America is Ferrovial’s growth engine, where it developed and is currently operating five Express Lanes across Texas, North Carolina and Virginia, and is managing the 407 ETR highway in Toronto, Canada. The company is also leading the development of the New Terminal One at JFK International Airport. Ferrovial shares trade under the ticker symbol FER on three stock markets: U.S. (Nasdaq‑100 Index), Spain (IBEX‑35), and the Netherlands. The company is included in globally recognized sustainability indices such as the Dow Jones Best in Class Index.

NAICS: 237
NAICS Definition: Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
Employees: 12,658
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fugro.jpeg
Fugro
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ferrovial.jpeg
Ferrovial
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Fugro
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ferrovial
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fugro in 2026.

Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ferrovial in 2026.

Incident History — Fugro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fugro cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Ferrovial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ferrovial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fugro.jpeg
Fugro
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ferrovial.jpeg
Ferrovial
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Internal Employee
Motivation: Unspecified
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Ferrovial company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Fugro company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Ferrovial company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Fugro company has not reported any.

In the current year, Ferrovial company and Fugro company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ferrovial company nor Fugro company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Ferrovial company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Fugro company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ferrovial company nor Fugro company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fugro company nor Ferrovial company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fugro nor Ferrovial holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Ferrovial company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Fugro company.

Ferrovial company employs more people globally than Fugro company, reflecting its scale as a Civil Engineering.

Neither Fugro nor Ferrovial holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fugro nor Ferrovial holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fugro nor Ferrovial holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fugro nor Ferrovial holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fugro nor Ferrovial holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fugro nor Ferrovial holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers assume that the history index is always available and call blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap() directly. That assumption is false by construction. HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() explicitly returns None for the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state. when a full node is syncing or otherwise running without the history index, a remote peer can send RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress and trigger an Option::unwrap() panic on the request path. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.5.95, FileTools.download_file() in praisonaiagents validates the destination path but performs no validation on the url parameter, passing it directly to httpx.stream() with follow_redirects=True. An attacker who controls the URL can reach any host accessible from the server including cloud metadata services and internal network services. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.95.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, OAuthManager.validate_token() returns True for any token not found in its internal store, which is empty by default. Any HTTP request to the MCP server with an arbitrary Bearer token is treated as authenticated, granting full access to all registered tools and agent capabilities. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, the PraisonAI Gateway server accepts WebSocket connections at /ws and serves agent topology at /info with no authentication. Any network client can connect, enumerate registered agents, and send arbitrary messages to agents and their tool sets. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.90, MCPToolIndex.search_tools() compiles a caller-supplied string directly as a Python regular expression with no validation, sanitization, or timeout. A crafted regex causes catastrophic backtracking in the re engine, blocking the Python thread for hundreds of seconds and causing a complete service outage. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.90.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References