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

Comparison Overview

Nova Scotia PowerNova Scotia Power
VS
Grupo EnergisaGrupo Energisa
Nova Scotia Power

Nova Scotia Power

1223 Lower Water Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.nspower.ca
668/1000Weak

We have had a presence in communities across Nova Scotia for over a century. As the primary electricity provider in the province, we are regulated by the Nova Scotia Energy Board and provide generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical power to approximately...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:1,388
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Grupo Energisa

Grupo Energisa

Cataguases, BR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
784/1000Fair

O Grupo Energisa tem na distribuição de energia elétrica a principal base de seu negócio. Com cinco distribuidoras no Brasil, das quais três na região Nordeste (Energisa Sergipe - Distribuidora de Energia S/A nova denominação de Energipe, no Estado de Sergipe, Energisa ...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:11,751
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Nova Scotia Power

Nova Scotia Power

-
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
Grupo Energisa

Grupo Energisa

-
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 Nova Scotia Power in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grupo Energisa in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Nova Scotia Power (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nova Scotia Power cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Grupo Energisa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grupo Energisa 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...
Nova Scotia Power

Nova Scotia Power

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV1765167105
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NOV1764460498
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NOV1045710112825
Grupo Energisa

Grupo Energisa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9