Comparison Overview

YPF

VS

Petrobras

YPF

Macacha Guemes 515, Capital Federal, Buenos Aires, ., AR
Last Update: 2025-12-13
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ypf.com

En YPF, tenemos un Plan 4x4 para convertirnos en una compañía de clase mundial y lograr transformarnos en grandes exportadores de hidrocarburos. Nuestros cuatro pilares son: la aceleración de la producción de petróleo en Vaca Muerta, el activo más importante que tiene nuestro país; la disciplina financiera en la gestión de inversiones; la búsqueda de las eficiencias operativas en los negocios, y la concreción del proyecto de GNL en Argentina. Invertimos en grandes proyectos de producción y exploración, transformación energética, industrialización y en el desarrollo de ductos para transportar la producción. Trabajamos por los combustibles del futuro y de calidad internacional. Buscamos constantemente innovación y nuevas tecnologías. Ponemos mucho esfuerzo para multiplicar nuestro potencial energético y seguir desarrollando la industria. Energía a la altura de tu energía. #YPFENERGÍAARGENTINA.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 27,131
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Petrobras

Avenida República do Chile, n. 65, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BR, 20031-912
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.petrobras.com.br

Nosso propósito é prover energia que assegure prosperidade de forma ética, justa, segura e competitiva. Queremos ser a melhor empresa diversificada e integrada de energia na geração de valor, construindo um mundo mais sustentável, conciliando o foco em óleo e gás com a diversificação em negócios de baixo carbono (inclusive produtos petroquímicos e fertilizantes), sustentabilidade, segurança, respeito ao meio ambiente e atenção total às pessoas. Saiba mais em petrobras.com.br

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 53,942
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ypf-s-a-.jpeg
YPF
—
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/petrobras.jpeg
Petrobras
—
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
YPF
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Petrobras
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for YPF in 2025.

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Average (This Year)

Petrobras has 17.65% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

YPF cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Petrobras cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ypf-s-a-.jpeg
YPF
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/petrobras.jpeg
Petrobras
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, data exfiltration for competitive advantage
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Petrobras company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas YPF company has not reported any.

In the current year, Petrobras company has reported more cyber incidents than YPF company.

Petrobras company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while YPF company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Petrobras company nor YPF company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Petrobras company nor YPF company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither YPF company nor Petrobras company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither YPF nor Petrobras holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

YPF company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Petrobras company.

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

Neither YPF nor Petrobras holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither YPF nor Petrobras holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither YPF nor Petrobras holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither YPF nor Petrobras holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither YPF nor Petrobras holds HIPAA certification.

Neither YPF nor Petrobras holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References