Comparison Overview

Baker Hughes

VS

ConocoPhillips

Baker Hughes

17021 Aldine Westfield, Houston, Texas, 77073, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 800 and 849

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: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 65,278
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

ConocoPhillips

925 N Eldridge Pkwy, Houston, 77079, US
Last Update: 2025-12-02

We are a global oil and gas company tasked with an important job—to safely find and deliver energy for the world. We’re experts in what we do—from the well site to the office. Across our operations and activities in 13 countries, we never forget our responsibility to be a great neighbor, and a great place to work. Guided by our SPIRIT Values—Safety, People, Integrity, Responsibility, Innovation and Teamwork—we deliver strong performance, keeping our promises to our stakeholders, communities and each other. We solve problems and develop new approaches together, as a team of people—not job titles. That’s ConocoPhillips. It’s not just what we do. It’s how we do it. At ConocoPhillips, we believe it is important to foster a safe and constructive online environment for our community. To do so, we encourage visitors to contribute to conversations by following a few guidelines: - Please contribute to the dialogue by keeping your comments relevant to the community and on topic. - Direct your comments at issues, rather than individuals. Any of the following violations of these guidelines may warrant, without prior notice, actions such as removing posts and comments or blocking an account: - Comments that are spam, defamatory or offensive (e.g., obscene, indecent, profane, violent, cruel or discriminatory) will be removed. - Content that violates the terms of use stipulated by each social media operating company. - Any other behavior ConocoPhillips deems inappropriate. Community policy: https://bit.ly/3mrTG4d

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 16,775
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/bhge.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/conocophillips.jpeg
ConocoPhillips
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
ConocoPhillips
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baker Hughes in 2025.

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ConocoPhillips in 2025.

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

Baker Hughes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

ConocoPhillips cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

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

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/conocophillips.jpeg
ConocoPhillips
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, ConocoPhillips company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Baker Hughes company.

In the current year, ConocoPhillips company and Baker Hughes company have not reported any cyber incidents.

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

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

Neither ConocoPhillips company nor Baker Hughes company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither Baker Hughes nor ConocoPhillips holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Baker Hughes company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to ConocoPhillips company.

Baker Hughes company employs more people globally than ConocoPhillips company, reflecting its scale as a Oil and Gas.

Neither Baker Hughes nor ConocoPhillips holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor ConocoPhillips holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor ConocoPhillips holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor ConocoPhillips holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor ConocoPhillips holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Baker Hughes nor ConocoPhillips holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to 1.10.4, some of HedgeDoc's OAuth2 endpoints for social login providers such as Google, GitHub, GitLab, Facebook or Dropbox lack CSRF protection, since they don't send a state parameter and verify the response using this parameter. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.10.4.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

Langflow versions up to and including 1.6.9 contain a chained vulnerability that enables account takeover and remote code execution. An overly permissive CORS configuration (allow_origins='*' with allow_credentials=True) combined with a refresh token cookie configured as SameSite=None allows a malicious webpage to perform cross-origin requests that include credentials and successfully call the refresh endpoint. An attacker-controlled origin can therefore obtain fresh access_token / refresh_token pairs for a victim session. Obtained tokens permit access to authenticated endpoints — including built-in code-execution functionality — allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary code and achieve full system compromise.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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 vulnerability was detected in xerrors Yuxi-Know up to 0.4.0. This vulnerability affects the function OtherEmbedding.aencode of the file /src/models/embed.py. Performing manipulation of the argument health_url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The patch is named 0ff771dc1933d5a6b78f804115e78a7d8625c3f3. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. The vendor responded with a vulnerability confirmation and a list of security measures they have established already (e.g. disabled URL parsing, disabled URL upload mode, removed URL-to-markdown conversion).

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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 vulnerability has been detected in Rarlab RAR App up to 7.11 Build 127 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.rarlab.rar. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 7.20 build 128 is able to mitigate this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor responded very professional: "This is the real vulnerability affecting RAR for Android only. WinRAR and Unix RAR versions are not affected. We already fixed it in RAR for Android 7.20 build 128 and we publicly mentioned it in that version changelog. (...) To avoid confusion among users, it would be useful if such disclosure emphasizes that it is RAR for Android only issue and WinRAR isn't affected."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.1
Severity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 2.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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 weakness has been identified in ZSPACE Q2C NAS up to 1.1.0210050. Affected by this issue is the function zfilev2_api.OpenSafe of the file /v2/file/safe/open of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. This manipulation of the argument safe_dir causes command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 9.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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