Comparison Overview

NTPC Limited

VS

E.ON

NTPC Limited

New Delhi, IN
Last Update: 2026-04-01
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ntpc.co.in

NTPC Limited is India’s largest power generation utility with roots planted way back in 1975 to accelerate power development in India. Since then it has established itself as the dominant power major with a presence in the entire value chain of the power generation business. From fossil fuels, it has forayed into generating electricity via hydro, nuclear and renewable energy sources. This foray will play a major role in lowering its carbon footprint by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To strengthen its core business, the corporation has diversified into the fields of consultancy, power trading, training of power professionals, rural electrification, ash utilization and coal mining as well. NTPC Ltd. country’s largest power generation company with an installed capacity of over 84 GW. For more details about us, visit www.ntpc.co.in

NAICS: 22
NAICS Definition: Utilities
Employees: 24,833
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

E.ON

Brüsseler Platz 1, Essen, DE, 45131
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 800 and 849
https://www.eon.com/en/imprint.html

We are one of Europe's largest energy companies with the business areas of energy networks, energy infrastructure solutions and energy sales. It’s on us to make new energy work, and we are actively leading energy’s future – putting our customers first and delivering innovative solutions that help advance the energy transition. With our 1.6 million kilometre-long energy distribution grid and around 47 million customers, we are playing a leading role in shaping a green, digital, and decentralised energy world and are investing massively to meet the rapidly growing demand for energy infrastructure. https://www.eon.com/en/privacy.html

NAICS: 22
NAICS Definition: Utilities
Employees: 30,538
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ntpc.jpeg
NTPC Limited
—
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/e-on.jpeg
E.ON
—
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
NTPC Limited
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
E.ON
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NTPC Limited in 2026.

Incidents vs Utilities Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for E.ON in 2026.

Incident History — NTPC Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NTPC Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — E.ON (X = Date, Y = Severity)

E.ON cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ntpc.jpeg
NTPC Limited
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/e-on.jpeg
E.ON
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

E.ON company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to NTPC Limited company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, E.ON company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to NTPC Limited company.

In the current year, E.ON company and NTPC Limited company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither E.ON company nor NTPC Limited company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither E.ON company nor NTPC Limited company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither E.ON company nor NTPC Limited company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither NTPC Limited company nor E.ON company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither NTPC Limited nor E.ON holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

E.ON company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to NTPC Limited company.

E.ON company employs more people globally than NTPC Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Utilities.

Neither NTPC Limited nor E.ON holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither NTPC Limited nor E.ON holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither NTPC Limited nor E.ON holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither NTPC Limited nor E.ON holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither NTPC Limited nor E.ON holds HIPAA certification.

Neither NTPC Limited nor E.ON holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Payroll Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /manage_user.php of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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

A vulnerability was identified in Axiomatic Bento4 up to 1.6.0-641. Affected is the function AP4_BitReader::SkipBits of the file Ap4Dac4Atom.cpp of the component DSI v1 Parser. Such manipulation of the argument n_presentations leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be performed locally. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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

A vulnerability was determined in Axiomatic Bento4 up to 1.6.0-641. This impacts the function AP4_BitReader::ReadCache of the file Ap4Dac4Atom.cpp of the component MP4 File Parser. This manipulation causes heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be launched locally. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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

iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Prior to version 2.3.1.6, there is a heap-buffer-overflow (HBO) in icAnsiToUtf8() in the XML conversion path. The issue is triggered by a crafted ICC profile which causes icAnsiToUtf8(std::string&, char const*) to treat an input buffer as a C-string and call operations that rely on strlen()/null-termination. AddressSanitizer reports an out-of-bounds READ of size 115 past a 114-byte heap allocation, with the failure observed while running the iccToXml tool. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.1.6.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References
Description

iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Prior to version 2.3.1.6, there is a stack-buffer-overflow (SBO) in CIccTagFixedNum<>::GetValues() and a related bug chain. The primary crash is an AddressSanitizer-reported WRITE of size 4 that overflows a 4-byte stack variable (rv) via the call chain CIccTagFixedNum::GetValues() -> CIccTagStruct::GetElemNumberValue(). This issue has been patched in version 2.3.1.6.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References