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

Comparison Overview

Gazprom NeftGazprom Neft
VS
HalliburtonHalliburton
Gazprom Neft

Gazprom Neft

ул. Почтамтская, д. 3-5,, Санкт-Петербург, 190000,, RU

Last Update: 21/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.gazprom-neft.com
831/1000Good

Gazprom Neft is a technological leader in Russia’s oil and gas market. We produce high-quality fuels, lubricants and bitumens for business and retail customers, refuel aircraft, and are developing our filling-stations network. New technologies mean we are constantly imp...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:5,905
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Halliburton

Halliburton

3000 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E., Houston, 77032, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.halliburton.com
779/1000Fair

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...

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 Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gazprom Neft

Gazprom Neft

-
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
Halliburton

Halliburton

-
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 Gazprom Neft in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Halliburton in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Gazprom Neft (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gazprom Neft 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 - Halliburton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Halliburton 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...
Gazprom Neft

Gazprom Neft

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Halliburton

Halliburton

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CANADYATLHUBEPIMODGAMZOOWEWHALBETSONTEL1769527593
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAL650092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2