Comparison Overview

NOV

VS

Enbridge

NOV

10353 Richmond Ave, Houston, Texas, US, 77042
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nov.com

NOV delivers technology-driven solutions to empower the global energy industry. For more than 150 years, NOV has pioneered innovations that enable its customers to safely produce abundant energy while minimizing environmental impact. The energy industry depends on NOV’s deep expertise and technology to continually improve oilfield operations and assist in efforts to advance the energy transition towards a more sustainable future. NOV powers the industry that powers the world.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 35,039
Subsidiaries: 20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Enbridge

3000 Fifth Avenue Place, Calgary, T2P 3L8, CA
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
https://www.enbridge.com/

At Enbridge, our goal is to be the first-choice energy delivery company in North America and beyond—for customers, communities, investors, regulators and policymakers, and employees. We also recognize the importance of a secure, reliable and affordable supply of energy, which we deliver every day through our four core businesses: -Liquids pipelines -Natural gas pipelines -Gas utilities and storage -Renewable energy There has been an increase in fraudulent activity related to recruitment and employment offers targeting potential candidates for companies like Enbridge. Learn how we accept job applications by visiting the careers section of our website.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 11,456
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/novglobal.jpeg
NOV
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/enbridge.jpeg
Enbridge
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
NOV
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Enbridge
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NOV in 2025.

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Enbridge in 2025.

Incident History — NOV (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NOV cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Enbridge (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Enbridge cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/novglobal.jpeg
NOV
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/enbridge.jpeg
Enbridge
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Enbridge company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to NOV company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Enbridge company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to NOV company.

In the current year, Enbridge company and NOV company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Enbridge company nor NOV company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Enbridge company nor NOV company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Enbridge company nor NOV company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither NOV company nor Enbridge company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither NOV nor Enbridge holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

NOV company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Enbridge company.

NOV company employs more people globally than Enbridge company, reflecting its scale as a Oil and Gas.

Neither NOV nor Enbridge holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither NOV nor Enbridge holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither NOV nor Enbridge holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither NOV nor Enbridge holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither NOV nor Enbridge holds HIPAA certification.

Neither NOV nor Enbridge holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References