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

Comparison Overview

GRDFGRDF
VS
EnbridgeEnbridge
GRDF

GRDF

6, Rue Condorcet, Paris, 75009, FR

Last Update: 13/03/2026

View Profile

GRDF est le principal opérateur du réseau de distribution de gaz naturel en France. Notre métier est de concevoir, construire, exploiter, entretenir et développer ce réseau. Ces infrastructures mesurent près de 200 000 km et sont le plus long réseau de gaz naturel en ...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:7,118
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Enbridge

Enbridge

3000 Fifth Avenue Place, Calgary, T2P 3L8, CA

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.enbridge.com/
816/1000Good

At Enbridge, our goal is to be the first-choice energy delivery company in North America and beyond—for customers, communities, investors, regulators and policymakers, and employees. We also recognize the importance of a secure, reliable and affordable supply of energy,...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:11,516
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GRDF

GRDF

-
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
Enbridge

Enbridge

-
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 GRDF in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Enbridge in 2026.

Incidents

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

GRDF cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Enbridge 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...
GRDF

GRDF

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Enbridge

Enbridge

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-113705
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in a2aproject a2a-rs up to 0.4.3. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file a2a-server/src/error.rs. Executing a manipulation can lead to information exposure through error message. The attack can be executed remotely. This patch is called 713b943af94ab2d521d483b841618b97a2e78a4d. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: 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: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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-9825
SUMMARY

IBM Cyber Fraud 1.0.0 through 1.0.2 has a missing secure attribute allowing sensitive cookies to be transmitted over unencrypted connections, potentially enabling an attacker to intercept session data through network-based attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-94402
SUMMARY

IBM Carbon Charts 0.4.0 through 1.27.19 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. The MeterChart component's Title.truncateTitle() function re-inserts a substring of user-supplied label text into the DOM via an unsanitized innerHTML write when the title exceeds the available container width. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser session.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-93888
SUMMARY

IBM Sterling Connect Direct for Unix 6.4.0.0 through 6.4.0.6 and 6.3.0.0 through 6.3.0.7 apnotify utility is vulnerable to a code injection due to insufficient validation of user input.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-93744
SUMMARY

IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an unathenticated remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper access control. By sending a specially crafted HTTP request to any URL within the Navigator application prior to authentication, a bad actor could exploit this vulnerability to alter server-side session security state.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
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