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

Comparison Overview

B.GrimmB.Grimm
VS
EDPEDP
B.Grimm

B.Grimm

5 Krungthepkreetha Road, Huamark, Bangkapi, Bangkok, 10240, TH

Last Update: 27/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://bgrimmgroup.com/
758/1000Fair

B.Grimm is a multinational conglomerate, founded in 1878, based in Bangkok. B.Grimm firmly believes in “Doing business with compassion for the development of civilisation in harmony with nature” for the mutual benefits to the company, which means to work with loving kin...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:505
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
EDP

EDP

Av. 24 de Julho, nº12, Lisboa, PT, 1249 - 300

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.edp.com
779/1000Fair

Our story began more than 40 years ago. Today we are a global company, among the largest players in the energy sector in Europe and the 4th largest producer of wind energy. We are proud to be a leading utility integrated in the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (World). ...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:13,888
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
B.Grimm

B.Grimm

-
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
EDP

EDP

-
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 B.Grimm in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EDP in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - B.Grimm (X = Date, Y = Severity)

B.Grimm 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 - EDP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EDP 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...
B.Grimm

B.Grimm

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
EDP

EDP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
EDP2217241122
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
EDP1769207360

FAQ

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