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

Comparison Overview

Clayton County Water AuthorityClayton County Water Authority
VS
Eskom Holdings SOC LtdEskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Clayton County Water Authority

Clayton County Water Authority

1600 Battle Creek Road, Morrow, 30260, US

Last Update: 05/08/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ccwa.us
718/1000Moderate

Clayton County Water Authority (CCWA) is located in metropolitan Atlanta and provides water, sewer and stormwater services to more than 260,000 people through 76,000 accounts. CCWA is recognized throughout the world for its sustainability practices and has been named on...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:270
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Maxwell Drive, Sunninghill , Johannesburg, 2191, ZA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.eskom.co.za
797/1000Fair

Company profile Eskom Holdings generates, transports and distributes approximately 95% of South Africa’s electricity – making up 60% of the total electricity consumed on the African continent. Eskom is the world’s eleventh-largest power utility in terms of generating...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:42,212
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Clayton County Water Authority

Clayton County Water Authority

-
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
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

-
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)

Clayton County Water Authority has 19.76% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Clayton County Water Authority (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Clayton County Water Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Clayton County Water Authority

Clayton County Water Authority

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CLA1785810223
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CLACOL1785947301
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ESK238221222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8