Comparison Overview

ExxonMobil

VS

Halliburton

ExxonMobil

US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 800 and 849

The need for energy is universal. That's why ExxonMobil scientists and engineers are pioneering new research and pursuing new technologies to reduce emissions while creating more efficient fuels. We're committed to responsibly meeting the world's energy needs. We aim to achieve #netzero emissions from our operated assets by 2050 (for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions) and are taking a comprehensive approach to create emission-reduction roadmaps for major operated assets. Find us also on: YouTube.com/ExxonMobil Find our latest Privacy Policy at https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Global-legal-pages/privacy-policy See our terms and conditions at https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/global-legal-pages/terms-and-conditions Find resources on our GHG emission reduction efforts here: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/resources

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 66,908
Subsidiaries: 37
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Halliburton

3000 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E., Houston, 77032, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

We collaborate and engineer solutions to maximize asset value for our customers. Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. With more than 45,000 employees, representing 130 nationalities in more than 80 countries, the company helps its customers maximize value throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir – from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production throughout the life of the asset.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 59,292
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/exxonmobil.jpeg
ExxonMobil
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/halliburton.jpeg
Halliburton
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
ExxonMobil
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Halliburton
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ExxonMobil in 2026.

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Halliburton in 2026.

Incident History — ExxonMobil (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ExxonMobil cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Halliburton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Halliburton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/exxonmobil.jpeg
ExxonMobil
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Breach
Motivation: To protect corporate interests amid environmental scrutiny
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/halliburton.jpeg
Halliburton
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

ExxonMobil company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Halliburton company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

ExxonMobil and Halliburton have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Halliburton company and ExxonMobil company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Halliburton company nor ExxonMobil company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

ExxonMobil company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Halliburton company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Halliburton company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while ExxonMobil company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither ExxonMobil company nor Halliburton company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Halliburton holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ExxonMobil company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Halliburton company.

ExxonMobil company employs more people globally than Halliburton company, reflecting its scale as a Oil and Gas.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Halliburton holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Halliburton holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Halliburton holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Halliburton holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Halliburton holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Halliburton holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H