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

Comparison Overview

BALBAL
VS
TATA PowerTATA Power
BAL

BAL

Moliere 222, Los Morales Secc Palmas, 11540, MX

Last Update: 22/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bal.com.mx
757/1000Fair

Grupo BAL es un conglomerado 100% mexicano que opera en diversos segmentos de la economía de nuestro país, que tiene un corporativo para apoyar a la Presidencia de nuestro Grupo y a las empresas.

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:600
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TATA Power

TATA Power

Tata Power, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400 001, Mumbai, 400009, IN

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tatapower.com
783/1000Fair

Tata Power is one of India’s largest integrated power companies and together with its subsidiaries and jointly controlled entities, has an installed/managed capacity of 14,294 MW. The Company has a presence across the entire power value chain - generation of renewable a...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:13,257
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BAL

BAL

-
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
TATA Power

TATA Power

-
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 BAL in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TATA Power in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - BAL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BAL 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 - TATA Power (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TATA Power 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...
BAL

BAL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TATA Power

TATA Power

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TAT2255161022

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-65388
SUMMARY

A remote attacker who controls a container registry may be able to direct a client's token request to a host of the attacker's choice, and disclose the victim's registry credentials to that host. This vulnerability is addressed in containerization version 0.41.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-61599
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the djust live transport resolves the LiveView to mount from a client-supplied dotted path by calling `__import__(module_path, ...)`. The module is imported — running its top-level code (import side effects) — before the framework checks that the resolved object is a `LiveView` subclass and before any per-view authentication. The `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` allowlist that should contain this is fail-open (`if allowed_modules:` — skipped when the setting is unset, the framework default) and uses loose `startswith` matching. An unauthenticated WebSocket client (the WS handshake does not require auth; per-view auth runs only after import + instantiate) can therefore send a `mount` / `live_redirect_mount` / `url_change` frame (or an SSE mount) with `view = "<any.importable.module>.AnyName"` and cause the server to import — and execute the top-level code of — any importable Python module by name. Version 1.0.7 fixes the issue with a fail-closed resolution gate (`djust._view_resolution.is_view_import_allowed`): a client view path resolves only if (a) its module is already loaded (`sys.modules` — so resolving runs no new code; URL-routed views loaded by URLconf at startup keep working with zero config) or (b) it matches `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` on a module-segment boundary (explicit opt-in for lazily-imported views). The gate runs before `__import__` at all three sinks (+ defense-in-depth inside `_instantiate_view`). As a workaround, set `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` to the narrow list of modules that contain your mountable LiveView classes. (Note: pre-patch the allowlist is `startswith`-matched and the import still precedes the subclass check, so this is mitigation, not a complete fix.)

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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-2026-61596
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, djust's per-object authorization (`get_object` + `has_object_permission`, ADR-017) was enforced on the WebSocket mount and event paths but not on three other render entry points: (a) the initial HTTP GET render, (b) SPA `url_change` navigation, and (c) `{% live_render %}` embedded child views. An authenticated user could therefore view (and on some paths act on) an object they are not authorized for by loading the page directly, navigating to it via SPA url-change, or composing it as an embedded child — a classic IDOR / broken object-level access control on object-scoped views. This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. All render entry points now route through a shared `enforce_object_permission` chokepoint: HTTP GET returns 403, `url_change` emits a `permission_denied` frame and skips the render, and `{% live_render %}` (eager + lazy) refuses the embed. Views without a custom `get_object` are unaffected (no-op). No reliable workaround short of upgrading. Do not expose object-scoped views through the HTTP-GET / url_change / live_render paths until patched.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-61589
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the WebSocket `handle_mount` and `ViewRuntime._build_request` rebuild an `HttpRequest` via `RequestFactory().get(...)` with no `HTTP_HOST`, so `request.get_host()` defaulted to `"testserver"` on the live path. Host/subdomain/domain `TenantResolver`s then misresolved the tenant — `None` on the live path while the HTTP path resolved correctly. With `STRICT_MODE=False` the tenant-scoped managers returned unscoped rows (cross-tenant disclosure); with the default they returned an empty queryset (broken tenancy). This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. The handshake Host is extracted from the ASGI scope, validated against `ALLOWED_HOSTS` (the same logic as the CSWSH Origin gate, parsed with Django's `split_domain_port` so malformed Hosts are rejected at the boundary), and propagated — with the TLS scheme — into the reconstructed request, so live-path tenant resolution matches HTTP exactly. There is no known workaround on the live path short of upgrading. Users are most exposed when combined with `STRICT_MODE=False`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
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-2026-61588
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, when a Django `Model` instance is assigned to a public view attribute, djust serialized it to the client with no sensitive-field denylist — sending fields such as `password` (the hash), privilege flags (e.g. `is_staff` / `is_superuser`), tokens, and other PII to the browser. Because exposing model objects to templates is a normal djust pattern, this could leak credentials/PII without the developer realizing the full object crossed the wire. This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. Model serialization applies a secure-by-default sensitive-field denylist (password/hash/token/secret-style fields and known privilege flags are withheld) with an identity-subset fallback. As a workaround, keep `Model` instances on `_private` attributes and expose only the specific fields needed, until patched.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8