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

Comparison Overview

Minnesota Energy ResourcesMinnesota Energy Resources
VS
British GasBritish Gas
Minnesota Energy Resources

Minnesota Energy Resources

N/A

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Minnesota Energy Resources is a regulated natural gas utility serving over 238,000 customers in Minnesota. Our service area includes more than 38,000 sq. miles, 55 counties and 179 communities from Canada to the Iowa border, and from the Dakotas to Wisconsin. The compan...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:80
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
British Gas

British Gas

Maidenhead Road, Windsor, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.britishgas.co.uk
769/1000Fair

Taking care of things. At British Gas we’re always looking at new ways to save energy and money for our customers. Everything we do from our trusted engineers to helpful call centre agents, and innovative product owners to digital marketing specialists, is about provi...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:10,282
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Minnesota Energy Resources

Minnesota Energy Resources

-
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
British Gas

British Gas

-
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 Minnesota Energy Resources in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for British Gas in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Minnesota Energy Resources (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Minnesota Energy Resources 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 - British Gas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

British Gas 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...
Minnesota Energy Resources

Minnesota Energy Resources

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
British Gas

British Gas

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
BRI1212261023

FAQ

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