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
Xcel EnergyXcel Energy
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
Xcel Energy

Xcel Energy

401 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, US

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.xcelenergy.com
812/1000Good

A leading energy provider, dedicated to excellence. We make energy work better for our customers, helping them thrive every day. That means always raising the bar - delivering better service and providing more reliable, resilient and sustainable energy to the eight stat...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:11,741
Subsidiaries:0
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
Xcel Energy

Xcel Energy

-
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 Xcel Energy 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 - Xcel Energy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Xcel Energy 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...
Con Edison

Con Edison

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Xcel Energy

Xcel Energy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8