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

Comparison Overview

YPFYPF
VS
WeatherfordWeatherford
YPF

YPF

Macacha Guemes 515, Capital Federal, ., AR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ypf.com
801/1000Good

Somos el mayor productor de Oil & Gas de la Argentina, con sólidos resultados y capacidad para llevar adelante los proyectos que convertirán al país en un exportador de energía a nivel mundial. Nuestro objetivo es convertirnos en una empresa no convencional de clase mu...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:31,125
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Weatherford

Weatherford

Dublin, IE

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.weatherford.com
767/1000Fair

Weatherford International plc (Nasdaq: WFRD) is a leading global energy services company. Operating in approximately 75 countries, the Company answers the challenges of the energy industry with its global talent network of approximately 17,000 team members and approxima...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:29,363
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
YPF

YPF

-
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
Weatherford

Weatherford

-
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 YPF in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Weatherford in 2026.

Incidents

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

YPF 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 - Weatherford (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Weatherford 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...
YPF

YPF

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Weatherford

Weatherford

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57995
SUMMARY

phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56777
SUMMARY

n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
3.1
CVE-2026-56700
SUMMARY

Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56415
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56413
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9