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

Comparison Overview

ExxonMobil Baytown AreaExxonMobil Baytown Area
VS
YPFYPF
ExxonMobil Baytown Area

ExxonMobil Baytown Area

Baytown, US

Last Update: 26/03/2026

View Profile
749/1000Moderate

Founded in 1919, the Baytown Refinery began operation in 1920 and the Chemical Plant started up in 1940. The complex is located on approximately 3,400 acres along the Houston Ship Channel, about 25 miles east of Houston. It is comprised of four manufacturing sites, inc...

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

YPF

Macacha Guemes 515, Capital Federal, ., AR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ypf.com
801/1000Good

Somos el mayor productor de Oil & Gas de la Argentina, con sólidos resultados y capacidad para llevar adelante los proyectos que convertirán al país en un exportador de energía a nivel mundial. Nuestro objetivo es convertirnos en una empresa no convencional de clase mu...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:31,125
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ExxonMobil Baytown Area

ExxonMobil Baytown Area

-
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
YPF

YPF

-
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 Baytown Area in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for YPF in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ExxonMobil Baytown Area (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ExxonMobil Baytown Area cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

YPF 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 Baytown Area

ExxonMobil Baytown Area

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
YPF

YPF

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-55867
SUMMARY

Graylog is a free and open log management platform. From 6.2.0 until 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2, the DELETE /users/{userId}/tokens/{idOrToken} endpoint implemented by UsersResource.revokeToken() in graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/users/UsersResource.java checks USERS_TOKENREMOVE permission against the attacker-controlled userId path parameter before resolving the token selected by idOrToken. An authenticated user can provide an authorized userId while accessTokenService.loadById() or accessTokenService.load() resolves a token belonging to another user, including a service account or administrator, after which accessTokenService.destroy() deletes that token without checking AccessToken.getUserName(). The issue does not expose token contents, but unauthorized deletion causes integrity impact and can disrupt access-token-based integrations. This issue is fixed in versions 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55860
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb does not gate clear-text password authentication plugins on transport encryption because the AuthenticationPlugin interface has no capability for a plugin to require a secure connection. A hostile or man-in-the-middle MariaDB server can send an AuthSwitchRequest naming mysql_clear_password or dialog (PAM) over a plain-TCP unencrypted connection, and AuthenticationFlow permits ClearPasswordPluginFlow or PamPluginFlow to return the user's password as cleartext bytes on the wire. The disclosed credentials can subsequently be used to authenticate directly to the database server. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55859
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb encodes and decodes all character data under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. A server can announce a mid-session change to character_set_client through the OK-packet session-state-tracking mechanism, including through SET NAMES executed by a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile or man-in-the-middle server. If the new character set is not UTF-8, the driver continues to exchange UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under a different encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value raises R2dbcNonTransientResourceException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55858
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, the connector encodes and decodes protocol text and performs client-side escaping under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. The server can report a mid-session change to character_set_client through OK-packet session-state tracking, including a change caused by SET NAMES, a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile server. If character_set_client changes to a non-UTF-8 value, the driver continues to read and write UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under another encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value causes SQLException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55857
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, PAM dialog authentication can be coerced into transmitting the account password over an insecure connection. The mysql_clear_password plugin is gated behind a secure transport, but the sibling PAM handler SendPamAuthPacketFactory, named dialog by the server, does not declare that requirement and inherits the default secure-required value false; older branches implement the same affected behavior in SendPamAuthPacket. A hostile or man-in-the-middle server can send an Authentication Switch Request for dialog over plain TCP, causing the driver to return the user's password in cleartext when sslMode=DISABLE and restrictedAuth=null, which is the default configuration. Properly verified TLS and local Unix sockets are not exposed to this transport vector. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2