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

Comparison Overview

South East WaterSouth East Water
VS
EDPEDP
South East Water

South East Water

WatersEdge, Frankston, 3199, AU

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
744/1000Moderate

At South East Water, we deliver healthy water for life. We're creating a better and more sustainable future. We encourage creativity and collaboration to turn new ideas and technologies into leading solutions for our customers. Together we question what's possible, chal...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:1,108
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
EDP

EDP

Av. 24 de Julho, nº12, Lisboa, PT, 1249 - 300

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.edp.com
779/1000Fair

Our story began more than 40 years ago. Today we are a global company, among the largest players in the energy sector in Europe and the 4th largest producer of wind energy. We are proud to be a leading utility integrated in the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (World). ...

NAICS:22
NAICS Definition:Utilities
Employees:13,888
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
South East Water

South East Water

-
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
EDP

EDP

-
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 South East Water in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EDP in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - South East Water (X = Date, Y = Severity)

South East Water cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - EDP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EDP 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...
South East Water

South East Water

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SOU0434904102825
EDP

EDP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
EDP2217241122
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
EDP1769207360

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9