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

Comparison Overview

S&P Global EnergyS&P Global Energy
VS
EcopetrolEcopetrol
S&P Global Energy

S&P Global Energy

55 Water Street, New York, NY 10014, US

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile
763/1000Fair

We provide the market insights so you can make informed trading and business decisions. We’re the leading independent provider of information and benchmark prices for commodities and energy markets.

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ecopetrol

Ecopetrol

Cra. 13 No. 36-24, Bogotá, CO, ----

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.ecopetrol.com.co
655/1000Weak

Ecopetrol (NYSE: EC) es la compañía más grande en Colombia y uno de los principales grupos de energía de Latinoamérica. Cuenta con más de 18.000 empleados y es responsable del 60% de la producción de hidrocarburos en Colombia. Es propietaria de las dos refinerías del Co...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:13,056
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
S&P Global Energy

S&P Global 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
Ecopetrol

Ecopetrol

-
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 Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for S&P Global Energy in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

Ecopetrol has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - S&P Global Energy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

S&P Global Energy 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 - Ecopetrol (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ecopetrol 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...
S&P Global Energy

S&P Global Energy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ecopetrol

Ecopetrol

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ECO1784557630
🔒 Incident : Breach
ECO1784348677

FAQ

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