Comparison Overview

British Gas

VS

EDP

British Gas

Maidenhead Road, Windsor, England, undefined, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

At British Gas we’re always looking at new ways to save energy and money for our customers. Everything we do from our trusted engineers to helpful call centre agents, and innovative product owners to digital marketing specialists, is about providing affordable, hassle-free service to keep British homes and businesses running smoothly. That’s why over 10 million UK homes and half a million businesses trust British Gas.

NAICS: 22
NAICS Definition: Utilities
Employees: 9,991
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

EDP

Av. 24 de Julho, nº12, Lisboa, None, PT, 1249 - 300
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

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). We want to build a new energy by promoting renewable sources. To do this, we have chosen ... ... to be 100% green by 2030; ... to be Net Zero by 2040; ... to innovate, to shape the energy sector; ... empower our communities to live more sustainably. Ours is the energy that strives to create a better future, inspired by people from four regional hubs. It is the energy that knows no borders, that never sleeps, and that connects us to you. We will harness wind, sun and water to lead the energy transition. We will all be green. We choose the Earth. Welcome to the official EDP Group LinkedIn page.

NAICS: 22
NAICS Definition: Utilities
Employees: 13,818
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/british-gas.jpeg
British Gas
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/edp.jpeg
EDP
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
British Gas
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
EDP
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for British Gas in 2025.

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EDP in 2025.

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

British Gas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

EDP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/british-gas.jpeg
British Gas
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2020
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2015
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Credential Stuffing
Motivation: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/edp.jpeg
EDP
Incidents

Date Detected: 04/2020
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

EDP company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to British Gas company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

British Gas company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to EDP company.

In the current year, EDP company and British Gas company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Both EDP company and British Gas company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Neither EDP company nor British Gas company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither EDP company nor British Gas company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither British Gas company nor EDP company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither British Gas nor EDP holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

British Gas company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to EDP company.

EDP company employs more people globally than British Gas company, reflecting its scale as a Utilities.

Neither British Gas nor EDP holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither British Gas nor EDP holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither British Gas nor EDP holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither British Gas nor EDP holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither British Gas nor EDP holds HIPAA certification.

Neither British Gas nor EDP holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

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