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

Comparison Overview

Natural Gas by S&P Global EnergyNatural Gas by S&P Global Energy
VS
Marathon Petroleum CorporationMarathon Petroleum Corporation
Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy

Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy

55 Water St, New York, US, 10041

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile

Providing benchmark prices, business-critical market news, fundamental data and insightful market analysis for the #naturalgas and #LNG markets globally.

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Marathon Petroleum Corporation

Marathon Petroleum Corporation

539 S. Main St, Findlay, 45840, US

Last Update: 10/07/2026

View Profile
812/1000Good

Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) is a leading, integrated, downstream and midstream energy company headquartered in Findlay, Ohio. The company operates the nation's largest refining system. MPC's marketing system includes branded locations across the United States, ...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:16,461
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy

Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy

-
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
Marathon Petroleum Corporation

Marathon Petroleum Corporation

-
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 Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marathon Petroleum Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy 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 - Marathon Petroleum Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marathon Petroleum Corporation 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...
Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy

Natural Gas by S&P Global Energy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Marathon Petroleum Corporation

Marathon Petroleum Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1