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

Comparison Overview

Phillips 66Phillips 66
VS
PT Pertamina (Persero)PT Pertamina (Persero)
Phillips 66

Phillips 66

2331 Citywest Blvd, Houston, Texas, 77042, US

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.phillips66.com
815/1000Good

As a leading integrated downstream energy provider, we power the operations that keep life moving forward. Our products enable a world that never quits and can’t afford to slow down. For everyone with a plan and the drive to make it happen, we Bring the Go.

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:12,485
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PT Pertamina (Persero)

PT Pertamina (Persero)

Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No. 11-13, Jakarta Pusat, 10110, ID

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://pertamina.com/
779/1000Fair

PT Pertamina (Persero) is an Indonesian state-owned enterprise, which is engaged in the integrated energy in Indonesia. Established on December 10, 1957, Pertamina had the experiences in upstream, midstream, downstream and renewable energy sectors for more than 50 years...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:81,187
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Phillips 66

Phillips 66

-
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
PT Pertamina (Persero)

PT Pertamina (Persero)

-
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 Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Phillips 66 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PT Pertamina (Persero) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Phillips 66 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Phillips 66 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 - PT Pertamina (Persero) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT Pertamina (Persero) 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...
Phillips 66

Phillips 66

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PT Pertamina (Persero)

PT Pertamina (Persero)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PER536092125

FAQ

Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Phillips 66 company and PT Pertamina (Persero) company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Phillips 66 and PT Pertamina (Persero), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Phillips 66 and PT Pertamina (Persero), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Phillips 66 or PT Pertamina (Persero) ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Phillips 66 or PT Pertamina (Persero) ?
Between Phillips 66 and PT Pertamina (Persero), which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Phillips 66 and PT Pertamina (Persero), which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
3.9