Comparison Overview
Southern Company

Southern Company
30 Ivan Allen Jr Blvd, Atlanta, GA, US, 30308
Last Update: 18/10/2026
Together with our subsidiaries, we deliver clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy to our 9 million customers. Our focus is doing so with service excellence. That means we are leaders who take action to meet our customers’ and communities’ needs while advancing ou...

Enedis
4 place de la Pyramide, Puteaux, FR, 92800
Last Update: 13/09/2026
Enedis est le gestionnaire du réseau public de distribution d’électricité sur 95 % du territoire français continental. Ses 38 859 collaborateurs assurent chaque jour l’exploitation, l’entretien et le développement de près de 1,3 million de kilomètres de réseau. Raccord...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Southern Company







Enedis






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)
Southern Company has 44.13% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Utilities Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Enedis in 2026.
Incident History - Southern Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Southern Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Enedis (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Enedis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Southern Company

Enedis
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.
Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.