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

Comparison Overview

Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyPacific Gas and Electric Company
VS
Xcel EnergyXcel Energy
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

300 Lakeside Dr, Oakland, California, US, 94612

Last Update: 03/09/2026

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

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
Xcel Energy

Xcel Energy

401 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, US

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.xcelenergy.com
812/1000Good

A leading energy provider, dedicated to excellence. We make energy work better for our customers, helping them thrive every day. That means always raising the bar - delivering better service and providing more reliable, resilient and sustainable energy to the eight stat...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:11,741
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
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
Xcel Energy

Xcel 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Xcel Energy in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

Xcel Energy 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...
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
PAC43221823
Xcel Energy

Xcel Energy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA