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

Comparison Overview

TRACTEBELTRACTEBEL
VS
PetrofacPetrofac
TRACTEBEL

TRACTEBEL

Boulevard Simon Bolivar 34-36, Brussels, Brussels, 1000, BE

Last Update: 12/01/2026

View Profile
776/1000Fair

Tractebel is a global engineering and consulting company delivering integrated solutions for sustainable energy and built environment projects. Our expertise is trusted worldwide across multiple markets like nuclear, renewables, power & gas, electrical grids, hydropow...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:6,073
Subsidiaries:31
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Petrofac

Petrofac

117 Jermyn Street, London, GB, SW1Y 6HH

Last Update: 29/03/2026

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

We are a leading international service provider to the energy industry, with a diverse client portfolio including many of the world’s leading energy companies. Petrofac designs, builds, manages and maintains oil, gas, refining, petrochemicals and renewable energy infra...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:15,580
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TRACTEBEL

TRACTEBEL

-
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
Petrofac

Petrofac

-
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 Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TRACTEBEL in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Petrofac in 2026.

Incidents

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

TRACTEBEL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Petrofac cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
TRACTEBEL

TRACTEBEL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Petrofac

Petrofac

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-113705
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in a2aproject a2a-rs up to 0.4.3. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file a2a-server/src/error.rs. Executing a manipulation can lead to information exposure through error message. The attack can be executed remotely. This patch is called 713b943af94ab2d521d483b841618b97a2e78a4d. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-9825
SUMMARY

IBM Cyber Fraud 1.0.0 through 1.0.2 has a missing secure attribute allowing sensitive cookies to be transmitted over unencrypted connections, potentially enabling an attacker to intercept session data through network-based attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-94402
SUMMARY

IBM Carbon Charts 0.4.0 through 1.27.19 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. The MeterChart component's Title.truncateTitle() function re-inserts a substring of user-supplied label text into the DOM via an unsanitized innerHTML write when the title exceeds the available container width. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser session.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-93888
SUMMARY

IBM Sterling Connect Direct for Unix 6.4.0.0 through 6.4.0.6 and 6.3.0.0 through 6.3.0.7 apnotify utility is vulnerable to a code injection due to insufficient validation of user input.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-93744
SUMMARY

IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an unathenticated remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper access control. By sending a specially crafted HTTP request to any URL within the Navigator application prior to authentication, a bad actor could exploit this vulnerability to alter server-side session security state.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9