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

Comparison Overview

Con EdisonCon Edison
VS
NeoenergiaNeoenergia
Con Edison

Con Edison

New York, New York, NY, 10003, US

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.coned.com
809/1000Good

We provide power to more than 10 million people and businesses across NYC and Westchester. Reliability and accessibility are central to what we do and how we provide energy service. Leading the industry to power tomorrow is our other focus- we are committed to aggressiv...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:9,206
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Neoenergia

Neoenergia

Praia do Flamengo, 78, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BR

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.neoenergia.com
789/1000Fair

Somos uma companhia de capital aberto com ações (NEOE3) negociadas na Bolsa de Valores de São Paulo. Parte do grupo espanhol Iberdrola, atuamos no Brasil desde 1997, e atualmente, somos uma das líderes do setor elétrico do país. Estamos presentes em 18 estados e no Dist...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:12,051
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Con Edison

Con Edison

-
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
Neoenergia

Neoenergia

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Con Edison in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Neoenergia in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Con Edison (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Con Edison cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Neoenergia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Neoenergia 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...
Con Edison

Con Edison

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Neoenergia

Neoenergia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2