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

Comparison Overview

Octopus EnergyOctopus Energy
VS
Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyPacific Gas and Electric Company
Octopus Energy

Octopus Energy

1 Upper James Street, London, England, W1F 9DE, GB

Last Update: 28/10/2025

View Profile
774/1000Fair

We're on a mission to make a big green dent in the universe by building a truly sustainable energy system globally. That means making power greener, smarter, and more affordable for everyone. We put customers at the heart of everything we do: with always-fair prices, ...

NAICS:221
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:3,895
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

300 Lakeside Dr, Oakland, California, US, 94612

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pge.com
804/1000Good

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, incorporated in California in 1905, is one of the largest combination natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. Based in San Francisco, the company is a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation. There are approximately 20,000 em...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:23,111
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Octopus Energy

Octopus 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
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

-
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 Octopus Energy in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 2026.

Incidents

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

Octopus 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 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 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...
Octopus Energy

Octopus Energy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
PAC43221823

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8