Comparison Overview

YPF

VS

Weatherford

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

Weatherford

undefined, Dublin, undefined, undefined, IE
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://www.weatherford.com

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 approximately 350 operating locations, including manufacturing, research and development, service, and training facilities.

NAICS: 211
NAICS Definition: Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees: 29,461
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/weatherford.jpeg
Weatherford
—
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
Weatherford
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)

No incidents recorded for Weatherford in 2025.

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

YPF cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Weatherford 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/weatherford.jpeg
Weatherford
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Weatherford company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to YPF company.

In the current year, Weatherford company and YPF company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Weatherford company nor YPF company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

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

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

Neither YPF nor Weatherford holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Weatherford company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to YPF company.

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

Neither YPF nor Weatherford holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither YPF nor Weatherford holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither YPF nor Weatherford holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither YPF nor Weatherford holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither YPF nor Weatherford holds HIPAA certification.

Neither YPF nor Weatherford 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