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

Comparison Overview

EDP South AmericaEDP South America
VS
IberdrolaIberdrola
EDP South America

EDP South America

São Paulo, BR

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile
757/1000Fair

EDP operates in 30 markets and is present in four regions: North America, Asia-Pacific, Europe and South America. In South America, we operate in the energy generation, transmission, networks and the free markets segments, as well as in the development, construction an...

NAICS:22111
NAICS Definition:Electric Power Generation
Employees:392
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Iberdrola

Iberdrola

Plaza Euskadi, 5, Bilbao, Biscay, ES, 48009

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.iberdrola.com
821/1000Good

With more than 180 years of history, Iberdrola is today a global energy leader, the leading wind power producer and one of the largest electricity companies in the world in terms of stock market capitalisation. We have been committed to clean energy for more than 20 ye...

NAICS:22111
NAICS Definition:Electric Power Generation
Employees:26,958
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EDP South America

EDP South America

-
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
Iberdrola

Iberdrola

-
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 Electric Power Generation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EDP South America in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Electric Power Generation Industry Avg (This Year)

Iberdrola has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - EDP South America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EDP South America 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 - Iberdrola (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Iberdrola 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...
EDP South America

EDP South America

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Iberdrola

Iberdrola

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BE-IBEALSARC1776666624

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57995
SUMMARY

phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8
CVE-2026-56777
SUMMARY

n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
3.1
CVE-2026-56700
SUMMARY

Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
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: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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-2026-56415
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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: 10.0
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:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56413
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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: 10.0
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:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9