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

Comparison Overview

Gulf Power CompanyGulf Power Company
VS
Eskom Holdings SOC LtdEskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Gulf Power Company

Gulf Power Company

One Energy Place, Pensacola, Florida, 32520, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

Gulf Power serves more than 460,000 customers in eight counties throughout Northwest Florida. The company’s mission is to safely provide exceptional customer value by delivering reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible electricity while strengthening our com...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:334
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Maxwell Drive, Sunninghill , Johannesburg, 2191, ZA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.eskom.co.za
797/1000Fair

Company profile Eskom Holdings generates, transports and distributes approximately 95% of South Africa’s electricity – making up 60% of the total electricity consumed on the African continent. Eskom is the world’s eleventh-largest power utility in terms of generating...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:42,212
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gulf Power Company

Gulf 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
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

-
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 Gulf Power Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

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

Gulf 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 - Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd 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...
Gulf Power Company

Gulf Power Company

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ESK238221222

FAQ

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