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

Comparison Overview

British Gas BusinessBritish Gas Business
VS
Adani GroupAdani Group
British Gas Business

British Gas Business

Grove Park, Leicester, LE19 1, GB

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile
758/1000Fair

British Gas is one of the UK’s leading business energy suppliers. Every day our experts help businesses move closer to a net zero future with energy supply options that are tailored to need and budget. With a range of different electricity and gas supply options, we hel...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:861
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Adani Group

Adani Group

IN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.adani.com/
813/1000Good

Adani Group is a diversified organisation in India comprising 10 publicly traded companies. It has created a world class transport and utility infrastructure portfolio that has a pan-India presence. Adani Group is headquartered in Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat, Ind...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:20,184
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
British Gas Business

British Gas Business

-
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
Adani Group

Adani Group

-
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 British Gas Business in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Adani Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - British Gas Business (X = Date, Y = Severity)

British Gas Business cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Adani Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Adani Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
British Gas Business

British Gas Business

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Adani Group

Adani Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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