Comparison Overview

Chevron

VS

NOV

Chevron

1400 Smith St, Houston, Texas, 77002, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 800 and 849

Our greatest resource is our people. Their ingenuity, creativity and collaboration have met the complex challenges of energy’s past. Together, we’ll take on the future. We support the LinkedIn Terms of Use (User Agreement), and we expect visitors to our page to do the same. We encourage open, lively conversation with a few simple rules: --We reserve the right to correct factual errors. --We will reply to comments when appropriate. --If we disagree with other opinions, we will do so respectfully. --You may not post anything that is spam or that is abusive, profane, or defamatory toward a person, entity, belief, or symbol. --We will delete any posts that contain personal information such as email addresses, phone numbers and physical addresses, and other third party intellectual property material, when that information does not belong to the author of the post. --You may not post job listings for non-Chevron positions. --While we support lively, open discussion, we reserve the right to delete comments.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 49,879
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

NOV

10353 Richmond Ave, Houston, Texas, US, 77042
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

NOV delivers technology-driven solutions to empower the global energy industry. For more than 150 years, NOV has pioneered innovations that enable its customers to safely produce abundant energy while minimizing environmental impact. The energy industry depends on NOV’s deep expertise and technology to continually improve oilfield operations and assist in efforts to advance the energy transition towards a more sustainable future. NOV powers the industry that powers the world.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 35,039
Subsidiaries: 20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chevron.jpeg
Chevron
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/novglobal.jpeg
NOV
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
Chevron
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
NOV
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chevron in 2025.

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NOV in 2025.

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

Chevron cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

NOV cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chevron.jpeg
Chevron
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/novglobal.jpeg
NOV
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, NOV company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Chevron company.

In the current year, NOV company and Chevron company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither NOV company nor Chevron company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither NOV company nor Chevron company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither NOV company nor Chevron company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Chevron company nor NOV company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Chevron nor NOV holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

NOV company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Chevron company.

Chevron company employs more people globally than NOV company, reflecting its scale as a Oil and Gas.

Neither Chevron nor NOV holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Chevron nor NOV holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Chevron nor NOV holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Chevron nor NOV holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Chevron nor NOV holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Chevron nor NOV holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N