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

Comparison Overview

Georgia Power CompanyGeorgia Power Company
VS
PT PLN (Persero)PT PLN (Persero)
Georgia Power Company

Georgia Power Company

undefined, Atlanta, Georgia, 30308, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.georgiapower.com/
769/1000Fair

High reliability, low prices and high customer satisfaction are cornerstones of our customer commitment, but it doesn't end there. We're equally dedicated to giving back to the communities we serve. Our vision to be "A Citizen Wherever We Serve"​ still holds true, more ...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:4,903
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PT PLN (Persero)

PT PLN (Persero)

Jl. Trunojoyo Blok M I/135, Jakarta Selatan, 12160, ID

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pln.co.id
791/1000Fair

Indonesia State Electricity Corporation PLN has a long history in electricity industry of Indonesia. As the sole provider of electricity in Indonesia, PLN is striving to increase quality of services to all Indonesian. In 1972, in accordance with Government Regulation N...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:24,902
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Georgia Power Company

Georgia Power Company

-
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
PT PLN (Persero)

PT PLN (Persero)

-
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 Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Georgia Power Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PT PLN (Persero) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Georgia Power Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Georgia Power Company 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 - PT PLN (Persero) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT PLN (Persero) 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...
Georgia Power Company

Georgia Power Company

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PT PLN (Persero)

PT PLN (Persero)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8