Comparison Overview

PEMEX

VS

Enbridge

PEMEX

Marina Nacional #329,, México, 11311, MX
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Petróleos Mexicanos es la mayor empresa de México, el mayor contribuyente fiscal del país, así como una de las empresas más grandes de América Latina. Es de las pocas empresas petroleras del mundo que desarrolla toda la cadena productiva de la industria, desde la exploración, hasta la distribución y comercialización de productos finales, incluyendo la petroquímica. Pemex contribuye el 35% del PEF, en otras palabras aporta 1 de cada 3 pesos para la construcción de escuelas, carreteras y hospitales. La tasa de éxito en exploración en aguas profundas es del 50% siendo superior al estándar internacional. En el 2014 las inversiones fueron por más de 25 mil millones de dólares. Pemex generó más de medio millón de empleos indirectos. Anualmente Pemex invierte cerca de 140 millones de dólares en donativos

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 45,054
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Enbridge

3000 Fifth Avenue Place, Calgary, T2P 3L8, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

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: 11,516
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/pemex.jpeg
PEMEX
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
PEMEX
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 PEMEX in 2026.

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Enbridge in 2026.

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

PEMEX 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/pemex.jpeg
PEMEX
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2019
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: DoppelPaymer Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/enbridge.jpeg
Enbridge
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

PEMEX company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Enbridge company has not reported any.

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

PEMEX company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Enbridge company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

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

Neither PEMEX nor Enbridge holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Enbridge company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to PEMEX company.

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

Neither PEMEX nor Enbridge holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither PEMEX nor Enbridge holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither PEMEX nor Enbridge holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither PEMEX nor Enbridge holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither PEMEX nor Enbridge holds HIPAA certification.

Neither PEMEX nor Enbridge holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N