Comparison Overview

TechnipFMC

VS

Enbridge

TechnipFMC

Hadrian House, Wincomblee Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, undefined, NE6 3PL, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

TechnipFMC is a leading technology provider to the traditional and new energies industry, delivering fully integrated projects, products, and services. With our proprietary technologies and comprehensive solutions, we are transforming our clients’ project economics, helping them unlock new possibilities to develop energy resources while reducing carbon intensity and supporting their energy transition ambitions. Organized in two business segments — Subsea and Surface Technologies — we will continue to advance the industry with our pioneering integrated ecosystems (such as iEPCI™, iFEED™ and iComplete™), technology leadership and digital innovation. Each of our approximately 20,000 employees is driven by a commitment to our clients’ success, and a culture of strong execution, purposeful innovation, and challenging industry conventions. To learn more about us and how we are enhancing the performance of the world’s energy industry, go to TechnipFMC.com.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 38,331
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Enbridge

3000 Fifth Avenue Place, Calgary, AB, T2P 3L8, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-20
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: 11,168
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/technipfmc.jpeg
TechnipFMC
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
TechnipFMC
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 TechnipFMC in 2025.

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Enbridge in 2025.

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

TechnipFMC 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/technipfmc.jpeg
TechnipFMC
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/enbridge.jpeg
Enbridge
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Enbridge company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to TechnipFMC company.

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

Neither Enbridge company nor TechnipFMC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

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

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

Neither TechnipFMC nor Enbridge holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Enbridge company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to TechnipFMC company.

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

Neither TechnipFMC nor Enbridge holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither TechnipFMC nor Enbridge holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither TechnipFMC nor Enbridge holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither TechnipFMC nor Enbridge holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither TechnipFMC nor Enbridge holds HIPAA certification.

Neither TechnipFMC nor Enbridge holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H