Comparison Overview

British Gas

VS

Enel Group

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

Enel Group

Viale Regina Margherita 125, None, Rome, Italy, IT, 00198
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

We are a multinational company changing the face of energy, one of the world’s leading integrated utilities. As the largest private player in producing clean energy with renewable sources we have more than 88 GW of total capacity, including around 64 GW of renewables. Distributing electricity through a network of 1.9 million kilometers to 69 million end users, being the first private network operator globally, and proudly bringing energy to approximately 58 million homes and businesses. People are the heart of our energy: our Group is made up of more than 60,000 people operating in 28 countries and our work is based on our values of Trust, Innovation, Proactivity, Flexibility and Respect. Diversity and inclusion play a key role for us, leading to our being recognized in all three of the most prestigious indices and rankings that assess corporate performance on gender diversity at the workplace and beyond: the Refinitive Diversity Inclusion Index, the Bloomberg Gender Equality Index, and the Equileap Gender Equality Global Report & Ranking. Let’s shape the energy of the future together.

NAICS: 22
NAICS Definition: Utilities
Employees: 29,573
Subsidiaries: 23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/enelgroup.jpeg
Enel Group
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
Enel Group
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 Enel Group in 2025.

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

British Gas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Enel Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Enel Group 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/enelgroup.jpeg
Enel Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Enel Group 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 historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Enel Group company has not reported any.

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

British Gas company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Enel Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

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

Neither British Gas nor Enel Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Enel Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to British Gas company.

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

Neither British Gas nor Enel Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither British Gas nor Enel Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither British Gas nor Enel Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither British Gas nor Enel Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither British Gas nor Enel Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither British Gas nor Enel Group 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