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

Comparison Overview

TüpraşTüpraş
VS
ExxonMobilExxonMobil
Tüpraş

Tüpraş

Tupras AS, İstanbul, Şişli, 34394, TR

Last Update: 12/02/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

İzmit, İzmir, Kırıkkale ve Batman’da bulunan dört rafinerisinde yıllık toplam 30 milyon tonluk ham petrol işleme kapasitesine sahip olan Tüpraş; Türkiye’nin en büyük sanayi şirketi ve enerji sektörünün lider oyuncusu olmanın yanında, Avrupa'nın 7. büyük rafineri şirketi...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:4,702
Subsidiaries:53
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil

US

Last Update: 26/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.exxonmobil.com
826/1000Good

The need for energy is universal. That's why ExxonMobil scientists and engineers are pioneering new research and pursuing new technologies to reduce emissions while creating more efficient fuels. We're committed to responsibly meeting the world's energy needs. We aim...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:66,908
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tüpraş

Tüpraş

-
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
ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil

-
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 Tüpraş in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ExxonMobil in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tüpraş 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 - ExxonMobil (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ExxonMobil 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...
Tüpraş

Tüpraş

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
EXX000120924

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1