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

Comparison Overview

ExxonMobil Global Land FuelsExxonMobil Global Land Fuels
VS
WeatherfordWeatherford
ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels

ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels

22777 Springwoods Village Parkway Spring, Spring, US

Last Update: 22/01/2026

View Profile

Land transportation is vital to modern life, carrying people and goods throughout the world to meet the needs of society and economic growth. And, as the ambitions to transport more and decarbonize faster continue to grow, the sector is undergoing transformation like ne...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Weatherford

Weatherford

Dublin, IE

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.weatherford.com
767/1000Fair

Weatherford International plc (Nasdaq: WFRD) is a leading global energy services company. Operating in approximately 75 countries, the Company answers the challenges of the energy industry with its global talent network of approximately 17,000 team members and approxima...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:29,363
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels

ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels

-
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
Weatherford

Weatherford

-
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 ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Weatherford in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Weatherford 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...
ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels

ExxonMobil Global Land Fuels

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Weatherford

Weatherford

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1