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

Comparison Overview

NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)
VS
Southern California Edison (SCE)Southern California Edison (SCE)
NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)

NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)

1 Royal Plaza, Royal Avenue, St Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 3PPGY1 2HL, GG

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
752/1000Fair

NextEnergy Solar Fund is a specialist solar energy and energy storage investment company that is listed on the London Stock Exchange as part of the ESCC category and is a FTSE 250 constituent. NextEnergy Solar Fund's investment objective is to provide ordinary share...

NAICS:221
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:5
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Southern California Edison (SCE)

Southern California Edison (SCE)

2244 Walnut Grove Ave., Rosemead, 91770, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sce.com/
754/1000Fair

As one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, we’re bringing more clean and renewable sources of energy to Southern California. From energy storage to transportation electrification, our employees are working on innovative projects that will help cut emissions an...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:12,464
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)

NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)

-
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
Southern California Edison (SCE)

Southern California Edison (SCE)

-
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 NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Southern California Edison (SCE) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF) 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 - Southern California Edison (SCE) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Southern California Edison (SCE) 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...
NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)

NextEnergy Solar Fund (NESF)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Southern California Edison (SCE)

Southern California Edison (SCE)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SCE310072925

FAQ

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