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

Comparison Overview

Atlanta Gas LightAtlanta Gas Light
VS
Eskom Holdings SOC LtdEskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Atlanta Gas Light

Atlanta Gas Light

10 Peachtree Place, Atlanta, GA, 30309, US

Last Update: 08/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://atlantagaslight.com/
756/1000Fair

Atlanta Gas Light is the largest natural gas distributor in the Southeast. It provides delivery service to approximately 1.55 million residential, commercial and industrial customers in Georgia. Atlanta Gas Light's role in Georgia's deregulated environment includes: ...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:482
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Maxwell Drive, Sunninghill , Johannesburg, 2191, ZA

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.eskom.co.za
798/1000Fair

Company profile Eskom Holdings generates, transports and distributes approximately 95% of South Africa’s electricity – making up 60% of the total electricity consumed on the African continent. Eskom is the world’s eleventh-largest power utility in terms of generating...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:42,212
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Atlanta Gas Light

Atlanta Gas Light

-
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
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

-
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 Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Atlanta Gas Light in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Atlanta Gas Light (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Atlanta Gas Light 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 - Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd 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...
Atlanta Gas Light

Atlanta Gas Light

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ESK238221222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA