Comparison Overview

Baker Hughes

VS

CAMX Power

Baker Hughes

17021 Aldine Westfield, Houston, Texas, US, 77073
Last Update: 2025-12-30
Between 750 and 799

Baker Hughes (NASDAQ: BKR) is an energy technology company that provides solutions for energy and industrial customers worldwide. Built on a century of experience and conducting business in over 120 countries, our innovative technologies and services are taking energy forward – making it safer, cleaner and more efficient for people and the planet. For more than a century, our inventions have revolutionized energy. We harness the power of engineering, data, and science to redefine what's possible. Our diverse portfolio of equipment and service capabilities span the energy and industrial value chain. Our two operating segments, Oilfield Services & Equipment (OFSE) and Industrial & Energy Technology (IET), are organized based on the nature of our markets and customers, and consist of similar products and services. Visit us at bakerhughes.com to learn more.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 66,617
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

CAMX Power

35 Hartwell Ave, Lexington, 02421, US
Last Update:
Between 750 and 799

CAMX Power LLC develops and transitions advanced technologies across lithium-ion battery materials, cells, and systems. Our patented GEMX cathode platform lowers cobalt and boosts performance for next-gen EVs, while our SensLi instruments (www.sensli.com) deliver fast, ultra-sensitive self-discharge testing of Li-ion cells. From lab to production, we help innovators improve battery performance, safety, and manufacturability. CAMX Power is headquartered near Boston, Massachusetts.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 19
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bakerhughes.jpeg
Baker Hughes
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/camx-power.jpeg
CAMX Power
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
Baker Hughes
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CAMX Power
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Energy Technology Industry Average (This Year)

Baker Hughes has 50.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Energy Technology Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CAMX Power in 2025.

Incident History — Baker Hughes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baker Hughes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CAMX Power (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CAMX Power cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bakerhughes.jpeg
Baker Hughes
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/camx-power.jpeg
CAMX Power
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Baker Hughes company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to CAMX Power company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Baker Hughes company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CAMX Power company has not reported any.

In the current year, Baker Hughes company has reported more cyber incidents than CAMX Power company.

Neither CAMX Power company nor Baker Hughes company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither CAMX Power company nor Baker Hughes company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Baker Hughes company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while CAMX Power company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Baker Hughes company nor CAMX Power company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Baker Hughes nor CAMX Power holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Baker Hughes company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CAMX Power company.

Baker Hughes company employs more people globally than CAMX Power company, reflecting its scale as a Energy Technology.

Neither Baker Hughes nor CAMX Power holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor CAMX Power holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor CAMX Power holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor CAMX Power holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor CAMX Power holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor CAMX Power holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper Input Validation vulnerability in qs (parse modules) allows HTTP DoS.This issue affects qs: < 6.14.1. SummaryThe arrayLimit option in qs does not enforce limits for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2), allowing attackers to cause denial-of-service via memory exhaustion. Applications using arrayLimit for DoS protection are vulnerable. DetailsThe arrayLimit option only checks limits for indexed notation (a[0]=1&a[1]=2) but completely bypasses it for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2). Vulnerable code (lib/parse.js:159-162): if (root === '[]' && options.parseArrays) { obj = utils.combine([], leaf); // No arrayLimit check } Working code (lib/parse.js:175): else if (index <= options.arrayLimit) { // Limit checked here obj = []; obj[index] = leaf; } The bracket notation handler at line 159 uses utils.combine([], leaf) without validating against options.arrayLimit, while indexed notation at line 175 checks index <= options.arrayLimit before creating arrays. PoCTest 1 - Basic bypass: npm install qs const qs = require('qs'); const result = qs.parse('a[]=1&a[]=2&a[]=3&a[]=4&a[]=5&a[]=6', { arrayLimit: 5 }); console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 6 (should be max 5) Test 2 - DoS demonstration: const qs = require('qs'); const attack = 'a[]=' + Array(10000).fill('x').join('&a[]='); const result = qs.parse(attack, { arrayLimit: 100 }); console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 10000 (should be max 100) Configuration: * arrayLimit: 5 (test 1) or arrayLimit: 100 (test 2) * Use bracket notation: a[]=value (not indexed a[0]=value) ImpactDenial of Service via memory exhaustion. Affects applications using qs.parse() with user-controlled input and arrayLimit for protection. Attack scenario: * Attacker sends HTTP request: GET /api/search?filters[]=x&filters[]=x&...&filters[]=x (100,000+ times) * Application parses with qs.parse(query, { arrayLimit: 100 }) * qs ignores limit, parses all 100,000 elements into array * Server memory exhausted → application crashes or becomes unresponsive * Service unavailable for all users Real-world impact: * Single malicious request can crash server * No authentication required * Easy to automate and scale * Affects any endpoint parsing query strings with bracket notation

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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: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
Description

A weakness has been identified in code-projects Refugee Food Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /home/editfood.php. This manipulation of the argument a/b/c/d causes sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: 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
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in code-projects Refugee Food Management System 1.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /home/editrefugee.php. The manipulation of the argument rfid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel vulnerability in Mobile Builder Mobile builder allows Authentication Abuse.This issue affects Mobile builder: from n/a through 1.4.2.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Hiroaki Miyashita Custom Field Template allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Custom Field Template: from n/a through 2.7.5.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L