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

Comparison Overview

Creos LuxembourgCreos Luxembourg
VS
TATA PowerTATA Power
Creos Luxembourg

Creos Luxembourg

105, Rue de Strassen, Luxembourg, L-2555, LU

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.creos.net
570/1000Very Poor

Creos Luxembourg S.A. owns and manages electricity and natural gas grids in Luxembourg. The company is responsible for planning, maintaining and operating these networks. Creos employs some 800 people - a highly skilled and efficient workforce that enjoys excellent work...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:330
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
TATA Power

TATA Power

Tata Power, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400 001, Mumbai, 400009, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tatapower.com
783/1000Fair

Tata Power is one of India’s largest integrated power companies and together with its subsidiaries and jointly controlled entities, has an installed/managed capacity of 14,294 MW. The Company has a presence across the entire power value chain - generation of renewable a...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:13,257
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Creos Luxembourg

Creos Luxembourg

-
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
TATA Power

TATA Power

-
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 Creos Luxembourg in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TATA Power in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Creos Luxembourg (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Creos Luxembourg cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - TATA Power (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TATA Power 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...
Creos Luxembourg

Creos Luxembourg

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CRE0702307091225
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CRE23242822
TATA Power

TATA Power

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TAT2255161022

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
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:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8