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
Southern CompanySouthern Company
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
Southern Company

Southern Company

30 Ivan Allen Jr Blvd, Atlanta, GA, US, 30308

Last Update: 25/08/2026

View Profile
825/1000Good

Together with our subsidiaries, we deliver clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy to our 9 million customers. Our focus is doing so with service excellence. That means we are leaders who take action to meet our customers’ and communities’ needs while advancing ou...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:11,829
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Southern Company

Southern Company

-
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 8.11% 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 Southern Company 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 - Southern Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Southern Company 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...
Clayton County Water Authority

Clayton County Water Authority

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CLA1785810223
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CLACOL1785947301
Southern Company

Southern Company

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-80138
SUMMARY

ClipBucket V5's web installer fails to properly validate or escape the php_cli_filepath parameter before passing it to shell execution. Unauthenticated attackers can submit a crafted POST request to the installer with a malicious php_cli_filepath value to execute arbitrary commands as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79912
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The impacted element is the function getCurrentTime of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. Performing a manipulation of the argument ntp_server results in command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79911
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The affected element is the function setSystemConfig of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Such manipulation of the argument Hostname leads to stack-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70665
SUMMARY

Doorkeeper OpenID Connect implements an OpenID Connect authentication provider for Rails applications on top of Doorkeeper. Prior to 1.10.4, the Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) endpoint persists client-supplied scopes without validating them against the server's configured scope set. Under certain conditions, this allows a self-registered client to obtain scopes beyond what the server intended to grant. In DynamicClientRegistrationController#application_params, the scopes attribute is assigned directly from params[:scope] with no validation against Doorkeeper.configuration.scopes or optional_scopes. Combined with enforce_configured_scopes being off by default and Doorkeeper's ScopeChecker prioritizing application-level scopes over server-level scopes, this creates a privilege escalation path. This issue is fixed in version 1.10.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-55805
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ("Cross-site Scripting") vulnerability in Drupal Drupal core allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Drupal core versions: from 0.0.0 to 10.6.13, from 11.3.0 to 11.3.14, from 11.4.0 to 11.4.4, from 0.0.0 to 11.0.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.1.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.2.*.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA